THE  NEW  THEOLOGY: 


ITS  ABETTORS  AND  DEFENDERS 


BY 


J.  A.  BROWN 


He  tb  at  is  first  in  his  own  cause  seemeth  jxist ;  but  his  neighbor  cometh  and 
seareheth  him  " — Prov.  xviii.  17. 


PHILADELPHIA : 
PUBLISHED  BY  HENRY  B.  ASHMEAD, 

GEORGE  STREET  ABOVE  ELEVENTH. 

1867. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2015 


https://archive.org/details/newtheologyitsabOObrow 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY: 


ITS  ABETTORS  AND  DEFENDERS. 


BY 

J.  A.  BROWN. 


"He  tliat  is  first  in  Ms  o-vrn  cause  seemetli  just;  but  his  neighbor  cometh  and 
searcheth  him." — Prov.  xviii.  17. 


PHILADELPHIA : 
PUBLISHED  BY  HENRY  B.  ASHMEAD, 

GEORGE  STREET  ABOVE  ELEVENTH. 

1857. 


TO 


ALL  LOYERS  OF  SOUND  DOCTRINE, 


ESPECIALLY  IK  THE 


THIS  PAMPHLET 


IS 


BY  THE 

AUTHOR. 


INTHODUCTION. 


In  sending  forth  this  publication,  to  share  whatever  destiny 
may  await  it,  a  proper  regard  for  the  opinions  and  feelings  of 
others  requires  a  brief  statement  of  the  reasons  for  its  appear- 
ancef  Its  preparation  has  not  been  to  the  writer  a  "  labor  of 
love,"  but  a  painful  task,  which  he  could  not  feel  at  liberty  to 
decline;  and  if  some  of  the  statements  shall  prove  to  be  un- 
pleasant in  their  character,  the  responsibility  must  rest  with 
those  whose  conduct  has  rendered  such  a  procedure  a  manifest 
duty.  Should  great  plainness  of  speech  be  used,  it  is  such  as 
both  suits  the  cause  of  truth  and  the  writer's  taste :  but  it  will 
be  his  endeavor  to  say  as  little  that  is  harsh  or  severe  as  is 
consistent  with  the  manly  utterance  of  his  sentiments."  No 
one  can  more  sincerely  regret  than  he  the  necessity  of  this 
manner  of  appearing  before  the  public ;  but  with  this  consci- 
entious assurance,  he  will  proceed  to  the  task  devolved  upon 
him,  and  first  ask  the  reader's  attention  to  the  following 
narration. 

Certain  exhibitions  of  important  Christian  doctrines  by  a 

well  known  divine  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  which  were 

believed  'by  many,  with  himself,  to  be  unsound  and  of  danger- 

1* 


6 


INTRODUCTION. 


ous  tendency,  led  the  writer  of  this  to  feel  it  his  duty  to  call 
the  attention  of  the  church  to  an  examination  of  them.  To 
such  an  examination,  if  conducted  in  a  Christian  spirit,  no  one 
in  any  Protestant  church  could  reasonably  object;  much  less 
any  one  in  the  Lutheran  church,  boasting  her  freedom  of  dis- 
cussion, and  willingness  to  have  all  her  doctrines  tested  by  the 
word  of  God.  Published  opinions  are  universally  regarded  as 
legitimate  subjects  of  criticism,  and  the  divines  of  other 
churches  expect  that  their  productions  will  be  subjected  to 
such  an  ordeal.  Infallibility  is  claimed  only  by  the  church 
of  Kome,  nor  can  any  one,  without  partaking  of  her  intolerant 
spiritj  attempt  to  deprive  ministers  or  people  of  their  right  to 
examine  what  is  offered  for  their  reception.  Truth  can  have 
nothing  to  fear  from  open  discussion;  it  is  only  error  that 
dreads  the  light,  and  takes  refuge  behind  grave  authority,  or 
some  other  convenient  shelter. 

The  Lutheran  Observer  was  first  selected  as  the  medium 
for  this  examination,  and  the  first  of  a  series  of  articles  sent 
to  that  paper  for  publication,  a  little  more  than  a  year  ago.  Some 
doubts  being  entertained  as  to  the  propriety  of  publishing 
these  articles  in  the  Observer,  the  matter  was  referred  to  the 
proprietors  of  the  paper,  by  whom  they  were  declined—not 
on  the  ground  that  there  was  no  room  for  suspicion  or  fear  of 
unsoundness  on  the  doctrines  in  question,  nor  that  the  articles 
were  in  any  way  unfit  for  publication,  hut  on  the  ground  that 
it  might  give  rise  to  a  warm  discussion,  with  which  many 
readers  of  the  Observer,  already  sick  of  controversy,  ought 
not  to  be  troubled.    In  a  courteous  communication,  returning 


INTRODUCTION.  7 

the  article,  it  was  freely  and  distinctly  admitted,  that  the 
views  published  by  Dr.  S.  S.  S.,  the  author  reviewed,  were 
''^  efficiently  obnoxious,  to  call  Ms  attention  publicly  to  tliem^^ 
and  the  suggestion  made  to  prepare  the  article  for  the  Re- 
vieiv."  At  the  same  time  it  was  decided  to  admit  nothing 
whatever  on  the  other  side,  or  in  commendation  of  the  work 
containing  the  opinions  reviewed,  and  thus  to  keep  the  Ob- 
server entirely  free  from  the  controversy.  A  communication 
from  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  shared  the  same  fate  as  the  article  of  the 
writer. 

After  more  than  half  a  year's  delay,  and  sufficient  opportu- 
nity to  know  that  many  of  the  ablest  and  best  men  in  the 
church  were  surprised  and  alarmed  at  the  views,  which  have 
been  termed  New  Theology  ;  and  there  being  no  indication  of 
any  explanation  from  the  author,  but  these  views  circulating 
wider  and  wider,  as  the  Observer  was  closed  against  the  dis- 
cussion, a  short  article  was  prepared  for  the  Review.  It  will 
hardly  be  pretended,  by  any  one  acquainted  with  the  senti- 
ments prevailing  in  the  church,  that  there  was  no  occasion  for 
such  an  article,  or  for  any  uneasiness  on  the  subject,  especially 
since  the  editors  of  the  Review  state  over  their  own  names, 
(Luth.  Obs.,  Aug.  28,)  and  as  a  reason  for  publishing  the 
the  article — ''we  knew  that  extensively  in  the  church  the 
writer  of  American  Lutheranism  loas  charged  with  being  U7i- 
sound  on  the  subject  of  original  sin  and  justification." 
Although  it  was  not  known  to  the  writer  at  the  time  his  article 
was  written,  he  has  since  discovered  that  some  of  these  charges 
had  already  been  published  to  the  world  by  a  very  highly 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

respected  minister  of  our  own  churcli.  In  preparing  the 
article  every  reasonable  precaution  was  observed  not  to  give 
offence.  Besides  avoiding  all  personalities  and  harsh  epithets, 
it  was  submitted  to  the  revision  of  some  of  Dr.  S.  S.  S's  own 
friends  :  and  although  it  has  been  very  liberally  abused  by 
such  anonymous  scribblers  as  Tolerance  and  Justice^  no  attempt 
has  been  made  to  adduce  a  single  sentence  that  is  unchristian 
in  language  or  spirit.  But  of  the  character  of  this  article 
nothing  more  need  here  be  said,  as  it  forms  a  part  of  this 
pamphlet,  and  the  reader  can  judge  for  himself. 

After  its  appearance  in  the  Review,  the  writer  was  further 
assured  that  all  communications  on  the  subject  would  be  kept 
out  of  the  Observer )  and  that  if,  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  the 
proprietors,  any  thing  should  appear,  equal  justice  would  be 
awarded  to  all  parties.  Had  this  judicious  decision  been 
observed,  and  the  discussion,  after  having  been  handed  over 
to  the  Review,  left  there,  the  quiet  of  the  church  would  not 
have  been  disturbed  by  it,  and  this  publication  might  have 
been  spared.  But  soon  after,  there  appeared  in  a  single  issue 
of  that  paper,  four  distinct  communications  relating  to  the 
subject,  some  of  these  grossly  personal  and  teeming  with  abuse, 
evidently  aiming  to  excite  prejudice  and  bring  odium  upon 
the  writer  of  the  article.  His  motives  were  assailed,  his 
honesty  questioned;  ^  was  insinuated  he  was  a  tool  for  others, 
that  he  was  mentally  imbecile  and  morally  perverse;  that  he 
was  a  symbolist  and  a  radical  anti-symbolist — all  this,  and 
more,  the  Observer  sent  forth  to  its  fifty  thousand  readers, 
partly  under  the  cloak  of  anonymous  names,  and  partly  under 


INTRODUCTION. 


9 


editorial  sanction.  The  Review  was  also  attacked  and  threat- 
ened with  destruction  for  daring  to  publish  the  article^  and 
so  grave  was  the  offence  deemed,  as  to  call  forth  the  maledic- 
tions of  at  least  one  Conference.  Unwilling  to  rely  on  truth 
and  argument;  almost  everything  on  that  side  was  given  a 
purely  personal  character.  The  writer  may  he  allowed  here 
to  say  that  he  would  sincerely  regret,  if  the  Evangelical  Review 
should  suffer  from  opening  its  pages  to  his  article ;  and  would 
siill  much  more  regret,  if  there  should  be  found  so  much 
intolerance  in  the  Lutheran  Church  as  to  proscribe  a  respecta- 
ble Review  for  doing  just  what  was  designed  in  its  establish- 
ment— affording  an  opportunity  to  discuss  a  question  of  vast 
importance,  and  in  which  many  felt  the  deepest  interest. 

As  the  comunications  in  the  Observer  were  read  by  many 
thousands,  who  had  not  seen  the  Review,  and  consequently 
had  no  means  of  judging  for  themselves,  and  as  it  was  believed 
that  great  injustice  had  been  done  the  writer,  he  was  induced 
to  send  to  that  paper  a  brief  explanation.  Through  the 
kindness  of  one  of  the  proprietors  its  insertion  was  secured, 
but  it  appeared  with  awful  chasms  indicating  that  parts 

unfit  for  publication  had  been  omitted,  when  not  one  syllable 
was  left  out  in  the  gaps  filled  with  asterisks.  Whilst  this 
gross  delusion  was  palmed  upon  the  unsuspecting  readers  of 
the  Observer,  the  fastidious  editor  felt  '^compelled  by  self- 
respect,^^  to  enter  his  disclaimer  against  the  strong  language 
employed  by  the  writer,  whom  he  had  allowed  to  be  personally 
assailed  by  individuals  lacking  the  courage  to  write  over  their 
own  names.    Self-respect  in  the  writer  decided  him  at  once 


10  INTRODUCTION. 

to  intrust  nothing  more  to  a  source^  that  had  paid  so  little 
regard  to  honor  or  righteousness.  The  tardy  and  singular 
apology,  that  afterwards  appeared,  the  writer  confesses  him- 
self unable  to  appreciate,  and  must  leave  it  to  practical  printers, 
and  those  who  know  something  of  this  matter. 

Whilst  the  Observer  was  acting  so  fair  and  magnanimous  a 
part,  the  writer's  attention  was  called  to  a  scurrilous  libel  in 
a  Grerman  paper,  the  Kirchenbote,  published  at  Gettysburg. 
The  falsehoods  contained  in  that  piece,  would  have  been 
exposed,  but  the  editor  has  since  published  a  retraction,  and 
the  writer  can  freely  forgive  an  act,  which  it  is  believed  would 
not  have  been  committed  had  it  not  been  for  the  interference  of 
others.  This,  however,  does  not  in  the  least  exculpate 
Dr.  S.  S.  S.,  who,  if  he  had  not  to  do  with  the  authorship  of 
that  libel,  at  least  aided,  as  the  writer  has  positive  proof,  in 
giving  it  publicity,  and  thus  made  himself  a  party  to  it. 

To  the  disclaimer  of  the  author  reviewed,  which  appeared 
in  the  Observer,  no  objections  would  have  been  made,  had  he 
confined  himself  to  a  simple  disclaimer,  and  announcement  of 
intention  to  reply.  But  in  that  disclaimer,  pursuing  the  same 
method  of  controversy  as  his  anonymous  defenders,  he  chooses 
to  question  the  writer's  honesty,  or  the  sincerity  of  his 
motives.  He  says,  ''We  are  willing  to  suppose  that  writer 
sincere,  and  though  mistaken,  actuated  by  upright  motives, 
and  if  so  .  .  .  "  Again,  ^'  If,  as  we  trust,  the  concern  of 
that  writer  arises  from  his  devotion  to  the  truth,"  and  ''with- 
out stopping  to  inquire  into  the  oingin  of  the  objections  to  the 
passages  cited  in  the  Review."     Now  it  would  be  simply  an 


INTRODUCTION. 


11 


insult  to  the  common  sense  of  the  reader,  to  say  that  such 
language  was  not  designed  to  insinuate,  that  the  writer  was 
actuated  by  some  other  motives  than  a  regard  for  the  truth. 
And  why,  it  may  be  asked,  so  much  freedom  on  the  part  of 
these  writers  to  suspect  and  impugn  the  motives  of  others  ? 
Is  it  because  they  are  so  free  from  every  taint  of  selfishness 
and  insincerity,  so  perfectly  candid  and  straightforward  in  all 
their  movements  that  they  may  complacently  sit  in  judgment 
on  others ;  or  is  it  because  some  men  are  so  uniformly  influ- 
enced by  unworthy  motives,  or  so  incapable  of  an  open,  hon- 
orable course,  that  they  deem  it  impossible  or  improbable  that 
others  should  be  ?  No  man's  motives  were  impugned  by  the 
writer  of  the  article  in  the  Review,  and  it  must  excite  the 
just  indignation  of  all  honorable  minded  men,  to  find  that, 
instead  of  an  appeal  to  truth  and  argument,  there  has  been 
a  resort  to  such  means  as  the  imputation  of  insincerity  or  base 
design.  It  cannot  help  any  cause,  but  must  create  suspicion 
of  inherent  weakness,  that  it  is  constrained  to  the  use  of  such 
means  to  divert  attention  or  oppose  the  truth. 

The  writer  would  ask,  what  has  he  done,  of  what  crime  has 
he  been  guilty,  that  he  should  be  visited  with  so  much  oblo- 
quy ?  Is  it  a  heinous  offence  in  the  Lutheran  Church  to 
question  the  infallibility  of  a  theological  professor,  or  to 
examine  the  soundness  of  views  contained  in  a  book,  put  forth 
in  the  heat  of  controversy,  and  against  the  earnest  remon- 
strance of  friends  ?  Must  we  receive,  without  examination  or 
dissent,  whatever  is  offered  from  certain  quarters;  or  has  any 
one  man  the  right  to  publish  and  circulate  what  he  pleases. 


12 


INTRODUCTION. 


and  no  one  else  dare  inquire  whether  it  be  truth  or  error  ? 
If  this  be  what  is  meant  by  American  Lutheranism  there  is 
very  little  gained  by  that  name.  Surely  the  Church  is  not  pre- 
pared to  give  upj  on  the  part  of  her  ministers  and  people^  the 
right  of  free  examination^  private  judgment^  and  appeal  to  the 
infallible  word  of  Grod. 

But  it  may  be  said^  that  the  writer  began  this  controversy, 
and  was  himself  the  cause  of  all  this  strife.  Such  a  charge 
he  would  deny,  and  assign  as  the  true  cause,  the  publication 
by  others,  of  views,  which  have  excited  and  distracted  the 
Church.  But  waving  this,  surely  there  is  a  wide  difference 
between  a  theological  discussion,  devoid  of  personalities  or 
abuse,  with  the  simple  view  of  eliciting  the  truth,  and  a  per- 
sonal warfare,  carried  on  with  a  manifestly  hostile  aim.  The 
writer  is  not  so  silly  as  to  complain  of  opposition  to  what  he 
has  written,  or  that  all  do  not  happen  to  agree  with  him  in 
sentiment;  but  he  complains,  that  instead  of  a  discussion  of 
doctrines,  most  of  those,  who  have  differed  from  him,  have 
chosen  to  discuss  personal  matters,  that  have  no  bearing  on 
the  questions  at  issue.  From  past  experience,  he  can  hardly 
hope  to  escape  the  animadversions  of  those,  whom  he  has  been 
so  unhappy  as  to  offend.  But  sincerely  desirous  as  he  is  of 
living  on  terms  of  amity  and  friendship  with  all,  he  is  unwill- 
ing to  purchase  the  good  will  of  men  by  a  craven  silence,  or 
by  holding  the  truth  in  unrighteousness.'^  Cherishing  no 
evil  feelings  towards  any  man,  he  will  not  be  hindered  by  any 
power  on  earth,  from  the  free  utterance  of  his  heart's  deep, 
earnest  convictions  on  great  questions  affecting  the  honor  of 


INTRODUCTION. 


13 


tlie  Redeemer^  and  the  welfare  of  His  cliurcli ;  and  should  the 
publication  of  this  pamphlet  subject  him  to  renewed  or 
increased  censure;  he  will  not  be  surprised  ^^as  though  some 
strange  thing  had  happened  unto  him/^ 

It  is  hoped  that  what  has  been  said  will  sufficiently  explain 
the  reasons  of  this  second  appearance  before  the  public,  on 
this  question  of  the  New  Theology.  The  controversy  having 
taken  so  strange  a  turn,  and  Dr.  S.  S.  S.,  instead  of  replying 
and  explaining,  as  was  expected  from  the  notice  given  by  him- 
self, having  assigned  reasons  why  he  will  not  enter  upon  the 
discussion,  which  are  just  so  many  efforts  to  decry  the  writer 
and  excite  prejudice,  there  seemed  to  be  but  one  course  left 
open,  and  that  is,  in  accordance  with  the  advice  of  many  and 
revered  friends,  to  publish  this  vindication  in  pamphlet  form. 
To  this  there  is  the  less  objection  since  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  has  pub- 
lished his  article  as  a  separate  pamphlet,  and  scattered  it 
through  the  Church.  To  give  the  reader  a  fair  opportunity 
of  judging,  the  original  article  from  the  Review  will  be  pub- 
lished entire,  and  without  change,  except  the  correction  of  a 
few  typographical  errors.  This  will  be  followed  by  a  review 
of  Dr.  S.  S.  S/s  article,  in  the  October  number  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Review. 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


Article  extracted  from  the  July  1857  number  op  the  Evangelical  Review. 


That  a  new  theology  has  heen  creeping  into  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  this  country,  is  a  fact  which  can  hardly  have 
escaped  the  notice  of  intelligent  readers ;  and  it  is  believed 
that  it  will  be  an  acceptable  work  to  call  attention  to  some  of 
its  prominent  features.  The  question  is  not  one  of  tastes,  whe- 
ther the  new  wine  is  better  than  the  old,  but  one  of  truth, 
whether  the  new  production  is  not  an  adulteration,  or  of  spu- 
rious character.  It  is  proposed,  in  this  article,  to  pass  some 
leading  points  of  this  theology  under  review,  and  to  see  how 
they  accord  with  the  teaching  of  Grod's  word,  and  the  gener- 
ally received  views  of  orthodox  theologians.  These  points 
shall  not  be  such  as  pertain  to  the  mere  paraphernalia  of 
religion — symbolism  or  anti-symbolism,  liturgy  or  no  liturgy, 
American  Lutheran  Church  or  Lutheran  Church  in  America 
— matters  that  we  cheerfully  leave  to  others ;  but  they  are 
points  which  enter  into  the  very  essence  of  religion,  and  con- 
cern the  great  change  which  every  one  must  undergo,  before 
he  is  fitted  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  the  condition  of  a 
sinner's  acceptance  with  G-od.  It  will  be  conceded  that  the 
discussion  is  one  of  some  consequence  to  the  cause  of  truth, 
the  honor  of  God,  and  the  safety  of  souls :  and  having  no 
other  object  than  the  furtherance  of  ^^the  truth  as  it  is  in 


16 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


Jesus/'  we  shall  endeavor,  whilst  using  great  plainness  of 
speech,  to  avoid  everything  that  is  improperly  personal  or 
offensive.    We  begin  with 

Regeneration. 

In  a  late  publication  ("Lutheran  Symbols,  by  S.  S.  S.,'') 
there  is  an  exposition  of  this  fundamental  doctrine  of  the 
Christian  faith.  We  hardly  know  where  to  begin  our  exami- 
nation, for  we  confess  that  the  beginning,  the  middle,  and 
the  end;  the  nature,  the  means,  and  the  result,  are  alike  to 
us  unsatisfactory.  Objection  might  be  made,  for  instance,  to 
the  following  statements  when  placed  together : 

"The  Saviour  uses  it  (Regeneration)  for  an  entire  and  radi- 
cal change,  and  we  have  no  right  to  iise  it  for  anything  else.'' 
"Do  not  mistake  the  beginning  for  the  completion  of  this 
great  spiritual  renovation  /'  with  "  But  faith  presupposes 
regeneration."  "Faith  is  found  only  in  the  regenerate  mind." 
'Now  if  regeneration  must  only  be  used  "for  the  completion  of 
this  great  spiritual  renovation,"  and  regeneration  must  pre- 
cede faith,  how  could  the  apostle  speak  of  "purifying  their 
hearts  by  faith?" — Acts  xv.  9.  The  influence  of  faith  in 
our  spiritual  renovation,  is  everywhere  recognized  in  the 
Bible.  That  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  regeneration 
of  the  soul,  must  begin  before  faith  in  Christ  is  exercised,  is 
not  denied;  but  that  the  work  receives  its  " completion,' '  is  a 
doctrine  contrary  to  the  word  of  Grod,  and  to  all  experience. 
Not  much  time,  however,  will  be  spent  on  this  point,  as  more 
attention  is  asked  to  what  is  said  of  the  nature  of  regenera- 
tion. 

"  As  regeneration  does  not  destroy,  but  merely  restrains, 
the  natural  depravity,  or  innate  sinful  dispositions  of  the 
Christian  (for  these  still  remain  in  him  after  conversion,)  it 
must  consist  mainly  in  a  change  of  that  increased  predispo- 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


17 


sition  to  sin  arising  from  action,  of  that  preponderance  of 
sinful  habits  formed  by  voluntary  indulgence  of  our  natural 
depravity,  after  we  have  reached  years  of  moral  agency/' 
This  same  statement,  word  for  word,  italics  and  all,  is  to  be 
found  in  more  than  one  publication  from  the  same  author,  so 
that  it  is  fair  to  regard  it  as  a  careful  expression  of  his  theo- 
logical views  on  this  point.  Nor  can  its  meaning  be  doubtful. 
It  is  simply  this — regeneration  leaves  man  with  his  "  natural 
depravity,"  his  corrupt  heart,  alienated  affections,  and  rebel- 
lious will;  and  only  changes  his  ^'sinful  habits"  formed  after 
he  has  reached  years  of  moral  agency.  It  does  not  reach  to 
the  seat  of  the  disease,  and  eradicate  it  from  the  system,  but 
only  abates  its  violence.  It  does  not  destroy  or  break  the 
power  of  natural  depravity,"  but  ^'merely  restrains"  it, 
keeping  it  within  certain  bounds.  According  to  this  theory, 
the  regenerated  soul  may  still  be  "  enmity  against  Grod,"  as 
before,  only  a  check  is  placed  upon  the  working  of  that  en- 
mity. To  show  in  what  condition  this  leaves  the  sinner  after 
his  regeneration,  it  will  he  sufficient  to  quote  from  the 
American  Recension  of  the  Augsburg  Confession"  on  natu- 
ral depravity.  ^'Our  churches  likewise  teach,  that  since  the 
fall  of  Adam,  all  men  who  are  naturally  engendered,  are  born 
with  sin,  that  is,  without  the  fear  of  God  or  confidence 
towards  Him,  and  with  sinful  propensities :  and  that  this  dis- 
ease, or  natural  depravity,  is  really  sin." 

That  our  interpretation  is  not  a  forced  or  unfair  one,  will 
appear  from  other  statements  in  the  same  volume. 

''But  infants  have  no  such  increased  predisposition,  no 
habits  of  sin  prior  to  moral  agency,  consequently  there  can 
be  no  change  of  them,  no  regeneration  in  this  meaning  of  the 
term."  The  argument  is,  that  as  infants  have  only  natural 
depravity  there  can  be  no  such  thiug  as  regeneration  with 
them,  because  regeneration  does  not  materially  affect  natural 

2*  . 


18 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


depravity.  The  whole  force  of  the  argument  rests  on  the 
assumption  that  natural  depravity  is  not  ajffected  by  the  work 
of  regeneration.  Again: 

^'If  the  growing  child  .  .  .  becomes  a  confirmed  sinner  .  . 
its  subsequent  regeneration,  if  it  takes  place,  will  be  the  more 
striking,  as  its  change  of  liahits  must  be  greater.''  But,  "if 
the  child  .  .  .  resist  the  solicitations  of  its  depraved  nature, 
its  continued  obedience  will  form  holy  habits,  and  this  pre- 
ponderance of  holy  habits,  when  established,  constitutes  its 
regeneration.'' 

Exceptions  might  be  taken  to  this  last  statement,  on  other 
grounds,  but  we  have  cited  it,  together  with  the  preceding,  to 
confirm  the  interpretation  pat  upon  the  language  of  the  first 
paragraph  on  this  subject.  In  all  the  statements  there  is  one 
view  held  forth,  and  the  language  is  incapable  of  any  other 
intelligible  meaning.  We  are  informed  that  regeneration 
leaves  the  natural  depravity  of  the  heart  pretty  much  as  it 
was  before  this  change,  and  only  produces  a  difference  in  the 
habits  of  the  individual.  It  may  be  possible  that  other  por- 
tions of  this  volume  could  be  adduced  to  show  that  views  con- 
trary to  these  are  also  inculcated;  but  no  one  can  blame  us 
for  taking  this  full  and  careful  statement  without  troubling 
ourselves  to  compare,  or  attempt  to  harmonize  discordant  and 
conflicting  doctrines.  Truth  is  self-consistent,  and  needs  no 
external  support,  but  error  will  not  stand  upright,  though 
propped  on  all  sides. 

How  such  Theology  accords  with  the  Bible  may  be  judged 
by  comparing  it  with  such  declarations  as  these :  And  a 
new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put 
within  you  ;  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your 
flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  a  heart  of  flesh." — Ez.  xxxvi.  26. 

Therefore,  if  any  man  be  in  Christ  Jesus,  he  is  a  new  crea- 
ture :  old  things  are  passed  away;  behold,  all  things  are 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


19 


become  new/' — 2  Cor.  y.  17.  ^'Knowing  this,  that  our  old 
man  is  crucified  with  him^  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  des- 
troi/ed,  that  henceforth  we  should  not  serve  sin." — Eom.  iv.  16. 
It  is  quite  unnecessary  to  multiply  passages  of  a  similar  im- 
port^ with  which  the  scriptures  abound;  but  the  reader  may 
be  requested  to  compare  the  language  of  the  book  with  the 
langTiage  of  the  Bible 

We  may,  perhaps,  be  assured  that  the  language  in  this  vol- 
ume is  onlv  a  scientific  statement  of  what  the  Bible  teaches 
in  popular  language.  To  sound  philosophy  in  religion  there 
can  be  no  objection;  nor  can  any  one  find  fault  with  having 
the  popular  language  of  the  Bible  sometimes  put  into  scientific 
form,  provided  its  meaning  is  not  destroyed;  but  we  have  a 
great  dislike  to  "science  falsely  so  called;"  and  we  have  no 
hesitation  in  afiu'mino;  our  conviction  that  the  view  given  of 
regeneration  is  as  shallow  in  philosophy  as  it  is  unsound  in 
theology.  It  just  as  little  apprehends  the  profound  depths  of 
man's  moral  and  spiritual  nature,  as  it  answers  the  simple, 
obvious  meaning  of  inspired  teaching. 

Or  should  it  be  said  that  nothing  more  is  meant  than  that 
the  regenerated  sinner  is  not  completely  sanctified — that  he 
is  not  entirely  free  from  every  taint  of  sin,  the  answer  is 
plain.  First,  the  language  is  too  strong  to  admit  of  such  a 
meaning;  and  secondly,  as  regeneration  is  employed  to  ex- 
press the  entire  change  undergone  by  the  individual — not  the 
beginning,  but  the  completion,  of  his  spiritual  renovation — 
if  it  does  not  remove  his  natural  depravity,  he  must  die  in 
his  sins,  with  his  heart  of  stone,  and  load  of  guilt.  Surely  it 
does  not  require  very  keen  discernment  to  perceive  a  difier- 
ence  between  the  original,  native  depravity  of  the  heart,  with- 
out one  sinole  risht  afl'ection  towards  G-od,  and  the  state 
of  the  heart  renewed  by  divine  grace,  into  which,  however, 
evil  thoughts  will  sometimes  enter,  disturbing  its  peace,  and. 


20 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


it  may  be,  leading  to  forbidden  acts.  The  godly  man  hates 
the  evil  he  possibly  by  temptation  has  been  drawn  to  do,  and 
loves  the  good  he  has  been  frustrated  of,  and,  having  intended, 
hath  not  attained  to  do.  The  sinner,  who  has  his  denomination 
from  sin  as  his  course,  hates  the  good  which  sometimes  he  is 
forced  to,  and  loves  that  sin  which  many  times  he  does  not, 
either  wanting  the  occasion  or  means,  so  that  he  cannot  do  it, 
or  through  the  check  of  an  enlightened  conscience  possibly 
dares  not  do:  and  though  so  bound  up  from  the  act,  as  a  dog 
in  a  chain,  yet  the  habit,  the  natural  inclination  and  desire  in 
him  is  still  the  same — the  strength  of  his  affection  is  carried 
to  sin."  Says  another — ^'The  distinction  between  sin  in  a 
Christian's  heart,  and  in  an  unconverted  man's  heart,  is  just 
the  distinction  between  poison  in  the  body  of  a  man,  and  poi- 
son in  the  body  of  a  rattle-snake.  Poison  in  a  man's  body  is 
felt  to  be  an  irritating,  destructive,  disorganizing  element, 
which  gives  him  no  rest  till  he  has  got  wholly  rid  of  it;  but 
poison  in  a  nittle-snake  is  part  of  its  nature,  which  helps  it  to 
defend  itself  from  its  foes,  and  to  obtain  its  prey.  So  in  a 
worldly  man,  sin  is  a  favorite  and  a  dear  lodger :  in  a  Chris- 
tian man  sin  is  a  hated  intruder."  These  rather  long  quota- 
tions will  relieve  us  from  any  necessity  of  further  pointing  out 
and  illustrating  the  difference  between  the  sinner,  who  retains 
his  natural  depravity,  and  the  saint,  who  is  transformed  by 
the  renewing  of  his  mind.  The  one  is  dead  in  sin,  the  other 
is  waked  up  to  newness  of  life,  and  is  following  after  holiness 
that  he  may  see  God. 

A  condition  of  things  is  described  in  "  Lutheran  Symbols,"' 
where  "the  line  of  distinction  between  converted  and  uncon- 
verted, between  mere  formalists  and  true  Christians  would  be 
obliterated,"  and  "we  should  have  pardoned  saints  and  par- 
doned sinners  in  the  church,  converted  and  unconverted  heirs 
of  the  promise,  believing  and  unbelieving  subjects  of  justifi- 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


21 


cation."  But  here  we  are  carried  a  little  further,  and  assured 
that  so  far  as  the  heart  is  concerned,  whatever  may  be  true  of 
the  habits,  it  remains  after  regeneration  as  it  was  before,  ex- 
cept in  the  restraint  placed  upon  it ;  so  that  we  have  unregen- 
erated  sinners  and  regenerated  saints  alike  in  their  natural 
depravity — children  of  (rod,  ^'born,  not  of  blood,  not  of  the 
will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  Glod,"  without 
natural  affection  towards  their  Father  in  Heaven — or,  accord- 
ing to  the  book,  '^without  the  fear  of  God  or  confidence 
towards  Him" — a  new  heart  with  the  old  corruption — a  new 
creature  in  Christ  Jesus,  with  the  Old  Adam  undestroyed. — 
And  yet  this  heart,  with  its  natural  depravity  undestroyed, 
must  love  Grod  supremely,  glory  in  the  cross  of  Christ,  and 
delight  itself  in  communion  with  infinite  purity  and  holiness. 
In  that  same  heart,  the  love  of  Grod  is  shed  abroad,  Christ  is 
formed  the  hope  of  glory,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  has  his  dwelling 
place. 

But  leaving  these  incongruities,  we  boldly  affirm  that  regen  | 
eration  has  to  do,  and  that  chiefly,  with  native  depravity — 
and  that  its  very  object  is  its  removal.  Take  any  fair  view 
of  original  sin  or  natural  depravity,  and  ask  if  the  work  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  soul  is  not  to  remedy  the  evil  ?  Is  it 
spiritual  blindness,  deadness,  want  of  all  right  affections 
towards  God,  with  evil  propensities,  etc.?  In  the  work  of 
regeneration  the  soul  is  quickened,  illumined,  visited  with  new 
life  and  affections.  That  there  are  some  remains  of  sin  is  not 
denied,  but  there  is  a  new  heart ;  its  enmity  against  God  has 
been  slain,  the  old  man  is  crucified,  and  the  body  of  sin  des- 
troyed. Whatever  change  takes  place  in  the  hahifs,  if  not 
mere  outside  pretence,  is  the  result  of  the  change  within — the 
'^putting  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is  created  in 
righteousness  and  true  holiness." 

Such  views  of  regeneration,  one  would  suppose,  must  have 


22 


THE  NEW  TOEOLOaT. 


corresponding  views  of  natural  depravity  or  original  sin;  and 
we  turn  with  interest  to  learn  what  is  said  on  this  subject. — 
After  reading  it,  we  think  no  one  will  be  surprised  to  hear 
that  the  author  has  excited  the  suspicions  of  the  entire  rejec- 
tion of  the  doctrine.  True^  he  distinctly  disavows  any  such 
sentiments,  or  even  so  much  as  a  temptation  to  doubt  on  this 
point;  and  we  readily  receive  his  disclaimer,  but  must  con- 
fess ourselves  at  a  loss  how  to  reconcile  tbe  language  employed 
with  sound  doctrine.  Natural  depravity  is  defined  as  dis- 
order in  the  mental  and  hodily  constitution  of  rnanJ'  And 
we  are  told  that  '^all  mankind,  in  consequence  of  their  de- 
scent from  fallen  Adam,  are  born  witb  a  depraved  nature,  that 
is,  their  hodily  and  mental  system  is  so  disordered  as  in  result 
of  its  operation  to  evince  a  'predis'position  to  sin.''  By  fre- 
quent repetition,  and  substitution  of  tbe  word  disordered  for 
depraved,  we  are  given  clearly  to  understand  that  original 
sin,  or  natural  depravity,  is  simply  a  disorder  of  the  bodily 
and  mental  powers.  Now,  if  disposed  to  be  facetious,  we 
might  do  as  was  done  with  Plato's  biped,  man,  and  say  that  a 
poor  suifering  dyspeptic,  disordered  in  body  and  mind,  was  a 
very  striking  development  of  natural  depravity.  Still  bet- 
ter, perhaps,  would  be  an  insane  man,  witb  a  diseased  body, 
or  else  one  of  the  demoniacs  of  the  New  Testament.  It  is 
not  denied  that  all  these  evils,  bodily  and  mental,  result 
from  man^s  original  sin;  but  is  that  all  that  is  involved  in  the 
doctrine  in  question?  If  natural  depravity  mean  only  this 
— a  disorder  in  the  mental  and  bodily  constitution" — then, 
it  is  very  certain  that  regeneration  does  not  remove  or  des- 
troy it :  for  regeneration  does  not  heal  bodily  disorders,  or 
repair  mental  deficiencies.  A  sound  body  and  a  sound  mind 
are  not  imparted,  where  they  did  not  previously  exist,  ''by 
the  washing  of  regeneration  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy 
irrhosto'^    Divine  grace  may  be  favorable  to  bodily  and  men- 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


23 


tal  health :  but  this  is  not  the  special  aim  of  regeneration, 
which  is  to  enlighten  and  purify  the  soul,  and  bring  it  into 
communion  with  Grod.  In  all  seriousness,  would  we  ask,  is 
natural  depravity  nothing  more  than  a  bodily  or  mental  dis- 
order ?  Has  it  nothing  to  do  with  the  moral  and  spiritual 
nature  of  man?  Is  there  nothing  in  it  that  is  corrupting, 
polluting,  defiling  to  the  soul?  Is  it  the  head  or  the  heart — ■ 
the  bodily  and  mental,  or  the  moral  and  spiritual  part,  that  is 
most  diseased?  The  bodily  and  mental  powers  may  have 
suffered  sadly  in  the  fall  j  but  has  not  the  moral  nature  suf- 
fered the  greatest  amount  of  evil?  It  is  the  heart  that  is 
deceitful  above  all  things  and  desperately  wicked;  and  from 
it,  as  from  a  corrupt  fountain,  flow  all  the  sins  that  darken 
the  pages  of  human  history. 

Our  own  judgment  of  the  danger  of  what,  to  say  the  least, 
cannot  but  be  regarded  as  extremely  meager  and  superficial 
views  of  human  depravity  and  regeneration,  will  be  best  ex- 
pressed in  the  language  of  one  of  the  greatest  lights  of  modern 
times  :  We  hold  it  of  prime  importance  that  we  should  have 
deep  and  adeqiiate  notions  of  the  guilt  and  depravity  of  man ; 
for  just  in  proportion  to  our  sense  of  the  virulence  of  the  dis- 
ease will  be  our  sense  of  the  value  of  the  remedy — -will  be 
the  value  that  we  set  both  on  the  sacrifice  that  atones  and  on 
the  Spirit  that  sanctifies.  A  meager  and  superficial  imagi- 
nation of  human  guilt  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all  meager  and 
superficial  views  of  Christianity.  Extenuate  this,  and  every 
thing  else  is  reduced  and  extenuated  in  proportion.  A  slight 
hurt  requires  but  the  application  of  a  slight  and  gentle  reme- 
dy :  and  accordingly,  on  the  system  of  those  who  look  on 
the  moral  distemper  of  our  nature  as  but  slight,  you  will  find, 
in  correspondence  with  this,  that  all  the  peculiarities  of  the 
gospel  revelation  are  well  nigh  attenuated  unto  nothing. — 
Christianity,  instead  of  being  regarded  as  a  radical  cure  for  a 


24 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


mortal  disease^  is  but  regarded  as  a  mild  and  gentle  remedy 
for  a  sli2:lit  moral  ailment/^ 

Tlie  application  of  this  doctrine  (regeneration)  to  the  case 
of  children  is  too  important  to  be  passed  over  in  silence. — 
Something  has  already  been  said  in  the  pages  of  the  Keview 
on  this  general  subject.  But  we  have  nothing  now  to  do  with 
the  doctrine  of  Baptismal  Regeneration.  Our  dif&culty  lies 
quite  in  another  direction,  and  to  our  mind  is  of  a  far  more 
serious  character.  We  are  content  to  let  others  dispute  about 
the  efficacy  of  Baptism,  whilst  we  keep  silence ;  but  we  can- 
not altogether  hold  our  peace  when  the  possibility  of  regene- 
ration is  denied  to  our  little  ones.  As  the  Bible  was  not  given 
to  gratify  our  curiosity,  it  says  less  in  regard  to  infants 
than  one  could  wish;  but  it  contains  enough  to  satisfy  all 
proper  demands;  and  most  Christians  are  agreed  in  receiv- 
ing from  it  assurance  of  the  salvation  of  those  who  die  in  in- 
fancy—salvation purchased  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  appli- 
ed by  the  Holy  Spirit.  How  this  application  is  made  it  is 
quite  beside  our  present  purpose  to  in<pire  ;  it  is  enough  per- 
haps to  know  that  it  is  the  work  of  Him  who  possesses  infinite 
wisdom  and  omnipotent  power,  and  who  is  not  limited  to  the 
modes  which  our  feeble  powers  can  comprehend.  Our  author 
makes  bold  to  deny  the  possibility  of  infants  being  regenera- 
ted :  Of  regeneration^  in  the  joroper  sense  of  the  terniy  in- 
fants are  incapable.''  But  infants  have  no  such  increased 
predisposition,  no  habits  of  sin  prior  to  moral  agency;  conse- 
quently there  can  be  no  change  of  them,  no  regeneration,  in 
this  meaning  of  the  term/'  This  is  the  only  use  of  regeneration 
which  our  author  allows,  and,  besides,  we  do  not  know  what 
it  could  mean  in  some  improper  sense.  One  point  is  clear 
enough  :  the  author  maintains  that  infants  are  incapable  of 
regeneration.  This  doctrine  carried  out  to  its  logical  and 
necessary  conclusion  would  be  horrible,  and  it  might  be  a  suf- 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


25 


jQcient  refutation  to  put  the  author's  own  language  into  syllo- 
gistic form.  He  admits  that  children  have  natural  depravity. 
Now — 

"  This  natural  depravity  disqualifies  its  subjects  for  heaven." 
"  Of  regeneration,  in  the  proper  sense,. ..infants  are  incapable," 
Ergo  ?  

Let  others  draw  the  conclusion.  Denying  to  them  the  capa- 
bility of  regeneration,  it  may  be  asked,  what  final  disposition 
is  made  of  those  who  die  in  infancy  ?  for  it  cai>  hardly  be 
supposed  that  they  are  to  be  excluded  from  a  place  in  heaven. 
Here  is  a  solution  of  the  difficulty:  At  death  their  corrupti- 
ble nature  shall  be  transformed  into  an  incorruptible,  and 
their  mortal  into  an  immortal  one ;  and  they,  liberated  from 
their  moral  disease,  be  ushered  into  the  blissful  presence  of 
Him  who  said,  ^'Suffer  little  children,  etc."  (Pop.  Theology 
and  Luth.  Manual.)  This  escapes  the  revolting  conclusion 
hinted  at  above ;  but  it  is  not  free  from  some  small  difficulties. 
First  of  all,  many  will  regard  it  as  quite  a  new  version  of  the 
Apostle's  language,  and  perhaps  a  new  view  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, to  be  told  that,  ^^~at  death,''  'Hhe  corruptible  becomes 
incorruptible,  and  the  mortal,  immortal."  The  corruptible, 
mortal  nature  must  mean  the  bodily  part,  and  with  the  corpse 
of  the  infant  lying  before  us,  to  hear  that  at  deatli'  this 
became  incorruptible  and  immortal,  would  contradict  all  the 
evidence  of  our  sense.  It  is  not  enough  to  say  that  the  Bible 
teaches  no  such  doctrine — it  is  simply  absurd  and  contrary  to 
the  plainest  facts.  The  liible  refers  this  great  change  to  the 
period  of  the  resurrection — then,  and  not  till  then,  will  the  . 
mortal  put  on  immortality. 

As  to  any  change  effected  in  the  spiritual  part,  at  death,  or 
by  death,  we  are  very  much  in  the  dark :  but  there  is  no  rea- 
son to  think  that  death  itself  effects  any  change  in  the  moral 
3 


26 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


character  either  of  infants  or  adults.  If  regeneration  be  im- 
possible during  the  life  of  an  infant^  and  possible  at  death, 
we  should  like  to  know  why.  It  would  seem  that  it  must  be 
owing  to  some  new  power  then  received  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
or  by  the  soul  of  the  infant,  or  else  death  must  possess  the 
great  regenerating  power.  The  first  of  these  is  little  short  of 
blasphemy — the  second  has  no  support  either  from  the  Bible 
or  from  reason — and  the  third  denies  to  the  Holy  Spirit  his 
office  as  the  regenerator  of  our  souls.  The  Master  says — 
^'  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,''  and  "  except  a  man 
be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.''  Can  we, 
for  such  theology,  give  up  the  old-fashioned  orthodox  notion 
that  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  regeneration,  does  give  a  new  heart, 
and  that  this  new  heart  can  be  given  to  children  as  well  as  to 
those  of  riper  years  ? 

Before  leaving  this  point  we  desire  to  cite  a  few  authorities 
to  show  that  the  denial  of  the  possibility  of  infant  regenera- 
tion has  not  been  the  commonly  received  view  among  stand- 
ard theological  writers.  The  views  of  our  Lutheran  divines 
are  well  known  to  be  the  very  opposite,  but  as  their  authority 
might  be  disputed  on  the  score  of  Symbolism,  or  leaning  to- 
wards the  sacramental  system,  we  will  call  in  those  of  a  differ- 
ent school  that  happen  to  be  at  hand. 

Jonathan  Edwards  says — "  The  Scriptures  give  ground  to 
think,  that  some  infants  have  the  habit  of  saving  grace,  and 
that  they  have  a  new  nature  given  them." 

Dwight  says — ''It  will  not  be  denied  that  some  persons 
are  sanctified  from  the  loomh/' 

Dick  says — ''  As  infants  are  not  fit  subjects  of  instruction^ 
their  regeneration  must  be  effected  without  means,  by  the  im- 
mediate agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  their  souls." 

Dr.  A.  Alexander  says — "How  solicitous  should  parents 
be  for  their  children,  that  God  should  bestow  his  grace  upoo 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


27 


tliem,  even  before  they  know  their  right  hand  from  their  left; 
and  when  about  to  dedicate  them  to  Grod,  in  holy  baptism, 
how  earnestly  should  they  pray  that  they  might  be  baptized 
with  the  Holy  G-host — that  while  their  bodies  are  washed  in 
the  emblematical  laver  of  regeneration,  their  souls  may  ex- 
perience the  renewing  of  the  Holy  G-host,  and  the  sprinkling 
of  the  blood  of  Jesus.'' 

Again — As  infants,  aceordino;  to  the  creed  of  all  reform- 
ed  churches,  are  infected  with  original  sin,  they  cannot,  with- 
out regeneration,  be  qualified  for  the  happiness  of  heaven. — 
Children,  dying  in  infancy,  must  therefore  be  regenerated  with- 
out the  instrumentality  of  the  word." 

Alluding  to  one  who  had  advanced  the  notion  ''that  chil- 
dren, before  the  exercise  of  reason,  are  incapable  of  regener- 
ation," he  says,  ''  hut  this  is  a  new  theory^  contrary  to  ail  the 
sound  doctrines  of  your  church  as  vjell  as  mine  The  doc- 
trine referred  to  above^  that  infants  are  incapahle  of  heing 
regenerated  until  they  are  capahle  of  attending  to  the  word, 
is,  in  my  opinion,  fraught  icith  consequences  subversive  of 
our  whole  sysieinJ^-^ — Letter  to  Bishop  Meade. 

To  these  may  be  added  one  of  the  most  profound  thinkers 
our  language  can  boast.  Opposing  the  doctrine  of  Baptismal 
Regeneration,  Coleridge  says — "  Observe,  I  do  not  deny — 
Q-od  forbid  ! — the  possibility  or  the  reality  of  the  influence  of 
the  Spirit  on  the  soul  of  the  infant.  His  first  smile  bespeaks 
reason — the  Light  from  the  Life  of  the  "Word — as  already 
existent;  and  where  the  Word  is,  there  will  the  Spirit  act," 

These  may  sufiice  to  show  what  some  other  men  have 
thought,  and  how  far  they  were  from  denying  that  infants 
may  be  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  But  still  more  de- 
cisive is  the  divine  word,  where  it  says,  (Luke  i :  15,) — ''  And 
he  shall  he  filed  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  even  from  his  mother^  s 
womhJ'    The  comment  of  Matthew  Henry  is  too  good  to  be 


28 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


omitted.  Observe/'  says  lie  ^^it  is  possible  that  infants 
may  be  wrouglit  upon  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  even  from  their 
mother's  womb ;  for  John  Baptist,  even  then  was  filled  with 

the  Holy  Ghost  Who  then  can  forbid  water,  that  they 

should  not  be  baptized,  who  for  aught  we  know.... have  receiv- 
ed the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we,  and  have  received  the  seeds 
of  grace  sown  in  their  hearts." 

It  would  be  a  very  easy  task  to  multiply  citations  from 
standard  authors,  and  to  bring  passages  from  the  Bible,  against 
the  views  inculcated  in  this  volume  on  the  subject  of  regener- 
ation, but  we  must  content  ourselves  with  what  has  been  al- 
ready adduced,  only  adding  our  entire  dissatisfaction  with 
very  much  that  is  said  on  the  nature,  the  subject,  and  the 
agency  of  this  great  work.  In  our  judgment  it  comes  short, 
immeasurably  short,  of  what  ihe  Bible  teaches,  and  is  fraught 
with  the  most  dangerous  consequences.  We  leave  this  sub- 
ject to  consider  another,  and  kindred,  one — 

Justification. 

Not  one  word  need  be  said  to  show  the  importance  of  this 
doctrine,  or  how  necessary  it  is  that  correct  views  of  it  should 
be  maintained  and  defended.  It  is  the  doctrine  so  carefully 
elaborated  by  Paul,  and  guarded  by  him  against  mistake  or 
abuse.  After  being  long  buried  or  obscured  it  was  again 
brought  to  the  light  and  clearly  unfolded  by  the  reformers. 
The  reformation  was  contained  in  that  doctrine  ;  it  marks 
the  point  of  separation  between  Romanism  and  Protestantism, 
and  was  truly  styled  by  Luther,  "  articuliis  stantis  vel  caden- 
tis  ecclesicB.^' 

The  substance  of  this  fundamental  doctrine  may  be  consid- 
ered as  embraced  in  these  two  points — First,  that  the  ground 
of  the  sinner's  justification  before  God  is  not  any  righteous- 
ness or  merit  of  his  own,  but  the  merit  and  righteousness  of 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


29 


Jesus  Christ ;  and,  secondly,  that  the  condition  of  receiving 
this  is  not  any  virtue  or  morality  on  the  part  of  the  sinner, 
but  faith  alone,  to  the  exclusion  of  everything  else  as  a  ne- 
cessary part  in  the  work  of  justification.  This  is  the  view  that 
we  understand  to  be  taught  in  the  word  of  Grod,  and  in  the 
confessions  of  evangelical  churches.  It  is  hardly  to  be  sup- 
posed that  any  one  would  be  found  in  the  Lutheran  church, 
directly,  and  in  so  many  words,  opposing  the  doctrine.  The 
question  with  us  is,  not  whether  this  be  so,  but  whether  views 
have  not  been  taught  and  extensively  promulgated,  that  are 
in  direct  conflict  with  any  correct  understanding  of  the  doc- 
trine, and  which,  if  suffered  to  prevail,  will  undermine  the 
very  foundations  of  our  faith  ?  The  very  thought  of  such  a 
thing  should  excite  our  vigilance,  and  lead  us  to  look  to  the 
priceless  legacy  handed  down  by  Apostles  and  Reformers. 

It  is  true  that  in  the  volume  already  quoted  Lutheran 
Symbols,''')  we  are  told  faith  is  the  only  condition  of  par- 
don"— and  this  some  may  consider  as  sufficient  to  remove  all 
suspicion  even  of  erroneous  teaching.  That  this  doctrine  is 
repeatedly  affirmed,  it  is  not  at  all  denied.  But  there  are 
other  views  inculcated  which  it  will  be  found  difficult  to  re- 
concile with  this  truth,  or  to  free  from  the  charge  of  being 

another  gospel.    We  read  that    Baptism  in  adults,  is  a 

condition  of  obtaining  those  blessings  purchased  by  Christ,'^ 
etc.  Pardon  of  sins,  or  justification,  we  suppose,  is  among 
the  blessings.  Again,  the  actual  pardon  of  individuals  by 
God,  depends  on  their  possessing  the  moral  fitness  required 
by  him."  And,  no  sinner  is  morally  qualified  for  pardon, 
until  he  has  been  regenerated,  and  has  consecrated  himself  to 
the  service  of  God.''  And  still  more  explicit — Without  a 
new  hirth,  an  entire  moral  renovation,  in  which  the  rebel  lays 
down  the  arms  of  his  rehellion,  and  the  slave  of  sin  is  deliver- 
ed from  the  dominion  of  his  depraved  habits,  and  becomes 

3* 


30 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


an  obedient  servant  of  Christ,  loving  holiness  and  delighting 
in  the  service  of  God,  it  is  IMPOSSIBLE  for  him  to  obtain  'par- 
don or  to  he  justified." 

Here^  instead  of  faitti  as  the  simple  and  sole  condition  of 
pardon  or  justification,  we  have,  after  regeneration,  or  an 
entire  moral  renovation,"  humble  submission,  victory  over 
sin,  obedience  to  Christ,  love  of  holiness,  and  delight  in  God, 
or  the  things  of  G-od.  It  will  not  be  said  that  these  are  not 
made  conditions  of  pardon,  when  we  are  assured  that  without 
them     it  is  impossible  to  obtain  pardon." 

Let  this  exposition  of  justification  by  faith  be  submitted  to 
the  test  of,  . 

I.  The  Word  of  God. 

Rom.  iii.  28. — Therefore  we  conclude  that  a  man  is  jus- 
tified by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law." 

E,om.  iv.  4 — 6. — Now  to  him  that  worketh  is  the  reward 
not  reckoned  of  grace,  but  of  debt.  But  to  him  that  worketh 
not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith 
is  counted  for  righteousness.  Even  as  David  also  describeth 
the  blessedness  of  man  unto  whom  God  imputeth  righteous- 
ness without  works.^' 

Rom.  iii.  21. — ^^But  now  the  righteousness  of  God  without 
the  law  is  manifested.  .  .  Even  the  righteousness  of  God, 
which  is  by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ  unto  all  and  upon  all  th(;m 
that  believe. 

Acts  X.  43. — Through  his  name,  whosoever  believeth  in 
him  shall  receive  remission  of  sins." 

It  is  needless  to  multiply  quotations,  which  might  be  in- 
creased almost  without  number.  These  passages  clearly  teach 
that  salvation  is  of  grace,  and  that  it  is  apprehended  by  faith, 
without  any  regard  to  works  of  obedience.  All  the  best  com- 
mentators are  united  in  interpreting  the  language  of  inspira- 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


31 


tion  as  excluding,  not  only  from  the  ground  (causa  ejfictens,^ 
but  also  from  the  condition  (causa  instrumentalis)  of  justifi- 
cation, everything  except  Christ  and  faith  in  him."^  Sinners 
are  not  said  to  be  justified  by  submission,  or  obedience,  or 
love,  or  delight  in  Grod,  but  by  faith.  Whosoever  helievetli 
in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life/^  ^'  He 
i\i2it  helieveth  on  t]iQ  Son  hath  everlasting  life/^  ^'And  by 
him  all  that  'believe  are  justified  from  all  things.  .  .  "  It 
pleased  Grod  by  the  foolishness  of  preaching  to  save  them  that 
helieve.''^ 

II.  The  Confessional  Writings  of  the  Church. 

These,  it  is  believed,  are  considered  orthodox  and  sound  on 
this  subject,  and  they  give  no  doubtful  utterance. 

*  E.  g.  Olshausen  on  Romans  iii.  21 — 31. — "  This  important  point 
is,  in  fact,  the  purely  objective  nature  of  justification^^  which  the  ex- 
pression actus  forensis  IS  intended  to  affirm,  so  that  justification  does 
not  depend  upon  the  degree  of  sanctification,  but  entirely  upon  the 
purpose  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  by  the  passive  and  active  obedience 
of  Christ,  the  sin  of  all  has  been  expiated,  and  the  obedience  of  all 
fulfilled  in  him.  God,  then,  regards  no  more  men  in  Adam,  but  in 
Christ,  from  Vv^hom,  in  the  work  of  conversion,  the  germ  of  the  new 
man  is  transmitted  to  the  individual.  Thus  only  does  the  gospel  be- 
come, in  truth,  good  news,  since  thus  the  salvation  of  man  does  not 
depend  upon  his  own  unstable  conduct  (on  which  supposition,  as  the 
Roman  Catholic  church  believes  and  requires,  a  constant  uncertainty 
must  remain  in  the  man's  mind  here  below,  whether  or  not  he  be  in  a 
state  of  grace,)  but  on  the  contrary,  by  the  unchangeable  purpose  of 
God,  which  man  apprehends  in  faith,  the  instability  of  his  own  char- 
acter is  corrected."  ..."  On  man's  side,  no  merit,  no  righteousness 
is  pre-supposed,  but  simply  a  living  faith  in  the  merits  and  righteous- 
ness of  Christ ;  these  faith  takes  up  into  itself,  and  thus  everything 
which  is  Christ's  becomes  man's." 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


Apology,  Art.  IV. —  On  Justification. 

By  faitb:  alone  in  Christ,  not  througli  love,  not  on  account 
of  love  or  works,  do  we  obtain  the  remission  of  sins,  although 
love  follows  faith/'* 

Form  of  Concord,  Part.  I- — On  Justification. 

^^Accordingly,  we  believe,  teach  and  confess,  that  our  justifi- 
cation before  Grod  is  this  ]  that  God  forgives  us  our  sins  out 
of  pure  grace,  without  any  regard  to  our  antecedent,  present 
or  subsequent  works,  worth  or  merit/'"]"  We  believe,  teach, 
and  confess,  that  faith  alone  is  the  medium  and  instrument  by 
which  we  apprehend  Christ/' 

We  reject  and  condemn  the  following:  ^That  faith  has 
the  pre-eminence  in  the  work  of  justification ;  nevertheless 
that  reformation  and  love  pertain  also  to  our  justification  be- 
fore Grod,  not  being  indeed  the  principal  cause  of  our  justifica- 
tion, but  that  our  justification  before  Grod  would  be  incomplete 
without  this  reformation  and  love.  That  faith  does  not  jus- 
tify without  good  works  :  so  that  good  works  are  required  as 
necessary  to  justification,  and  that  without  their  presence  man 
cannot  be'justified/  " 

Form  of  Concord,  Part.  II.  Art.  III. —  On  Justifi^cation. 

"  We  hold  that  neither  renovation  nor  sanctification,  virtues 
nor  good  works,  as  a  condition,  or  part,  or  cause  of  justifica- 
tion, should,  under  any  pretext,  title  or  name,  be  intermingled 
with  the  article  of  justification,  as  necessary  or  requisite  to  it; 
but  that  justification  by  faith  stands  alone  in  the  remission  of 
sins,  out  of  pure  grace,  solely  on  account  of  Christ's  merits — 

"  Sola  fide  in  Christum,  no7i  per  dilectionem^  non  propter  dilectionem 
aut  opera  consequimur  remissionem,  etc." 

•j-  Credimus  igitur  absque  ullo  respectu  praecedentium,  prae- 

sentium,  aut  cousequentium  nostroruin  operum,  dignitatis,  aut  meriti." 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


33 


which,  blessings  are  offered  to  ns  in  the  gospel^  and  by  faith 
alone  are  received,  appropriated  and  applied. 

Thus  too  must  be  preserved  the  order  between  faith  and 
good  works,  between  justification  and  renovation  or  sanctifica- 
tion.  For  good  works  do  not  precede  faith^  nor  does  sanctifi- 
cation  precede  justification.'^* 

These  citations,  which  might  be  greatly  enlarged,  leave  no 
room  to  doubt  as  to  how  the  reformers  apprehended  the  doc- 
trine under  consideraticn,  and  how  unwilling  they  were  to 
mingle  anything  else  with  faith  as  a  condition  of  pardon. — 
Next  might  be  adduced  the  sentiments  of  more  recent  divines 
from  the  Reformation  downward  to  the  present  time,  but  this 
would  unnecessarily  prolong  our  article,  and  consume  the 
reader's  time.  One  only  will  be  introduced.  The  truly  judi- 
cious and  sound  Dr.  A.  Alexander  says,  speaking  of  the 
special  office  of  faith  in  a  sinner's  justification'' — in  which 
neither  love,  nor  any  other  grace  has  any  part,  although  they 
are  the  effects  of  faith.  When  love  is  confounded  with  a  jus- 
tifying faith,  it  is  very  easy  to  slide  into  the  opinion  that,  as 
love  is  the  substance  of  evangelical  obedience,  when  we  are 
said  to  be  justified  by  faith,  the  meaning  is,  that  we  are  justi- 
fied by  our  own  obedience.  .  .  The  next  step  is — and  it  has 
already  been  taken  by  some — that  our  obedience  is  meritori- 
ous, and  when  its  defects  are  purged  by  atoning  blood,  it  is 
sufficient  to  procure  for  us  a  title  to  eternal  life.  Thus  have 
some,  boasting  of  the  name  of  Protestants,  worked  around, 
until  they  have  fallen  upon  one  of  the  most  offensive  tenets 
of  Popery.'^ 

We  are  not  disposed  to  raise  the  cry  of  Romanism  at  every 

"  Teneamus,  ut  neqiie  renoratio  neque  sanctificatio.  .  .  .  tan- 
quam  forma,  aut  pars  aut  causa  justificationis  aut  sub  qualicunque 
praetextu,  titulo  aut  nomine.  .  .  .  inmisceautur.  .  .  .  et  sola  fide  re- 
cipiantur,  apprehendantur  nobisque  applicentur." 


34  THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 

thing  which  does  not  happen  to  accord  with  our  own  notions, 
whether  it  be  found  among  those  who  are  distinguished  by 
the  label  Old  Lutheran  or  American  Lutheran  ;  but  it  will 
be  difficult  to  point  out  any  important  difference  between  the 
paragraphs  quoted  from  the  Lutheran  Symbols,"  and  the 
Romish  doctrine  of  justification.  Hagenbach  says  History 
of  Doctrines'' — "  Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants  agreed  in 
ascribing  to  Grod  the  justification  of  the  sinner,  but  differed 
in  this,  that  the  former  confounded  the  act  of  justification  with 
that  of  sanctification,  so  as  to  represent  both  as  the  one  act  of 
making  just,  while  the  latter  separated  the  one  from  the  other, 
asserting  that  the  justification  of  the  sinner  before  God  .  .  is 
antecedent  to  his  sanctification.  .  .  Both  'Roman  Catholics 
and  Protestants  admitted,  that  it  is  faith  which  justifies  the 
sinner,  but  there  was  this  great  difference  between  them,  that 
the  former  maintained  that,  in  addition  to  faith,  good  works 
are  a  necessary  condition  to  salvation,  and  ascribed  to  them  a 
certain  degree  of  meritoriousness,  while  the  latter  adhered 
rigidly  to  the  proposition,  "  sola  fides  justi feat." 

Our  author  seems  to  employ  regeneration  as  synonymous 
with  sanctification,  (the  contradiction  of  natural  depravity 
undestroyed,  and  sanctification,  in  the  same  heart,  we  do  not 
attempt  to  reconcile)  and  teaches  that  this  complete  moral 
transformation  must  precede  justification,  or  the  forgiveness  of 
sins.  How  there  could  be  a  more  complete  exchange  of  the 
Protestant  for  the  Romish  creed  on  the  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion, we  are  at  a  loss  to  conceive. 

Now,  if  in  defence  of  this  exposition  of  justification  by 
faith,  it  should  be  said,  that  all  this  is  included  in  faith,  we 
deny  it.  We  deny  that  the  faith  by  which  the  sinner  is  jus- 
tified includes  a  whole  catalogue  of  moral  qualifications  and 
religious  duties.  We  deny  that  any  such  view  of  faith  is  au- 
thorized by  the  word  of  God,  by  sound  philosophy,  or  by  the 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY.  35 

standard  writers  on  theology  :  and  we  maintain  that  it  is  ut- 
terly subversive  of  the  most  precious  doctrine  in  the  Bible — 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  through  the  blood  of  Christ  to  every 
one  who  believes  on  him.  It  is  not  incumbent  on  us  here  to 
go  into  a  discussion  of  the  nature  of  saving  faith.  SufB.ce  it 
to  say  that  faith  is  faith,  and  not  obedience,  or  love  or  delight 
in  Grod,  or  any  other  distinct  grace  or  virtue.  Nor  does  the 
Bible  say  being  justified  by  obedience,  or  love,  or  delight,  or 
good  works,  but  "  heing  justified  hy  faith,  we  have  peace  with 
God:' 

Or  should  the  defence  be  set  up  that  submission,  obedience, 
love,  etc.,  are  the  necessary  accompaniments  of  faith,  the  an- 
swer must  be  clear.  If  it  be  granted  that  they  are  not  con- 
stituent parts  of  faith,  that  they  succeed,  and  not  precede  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,  no  objection  will  be  made )  but  exactly 
the  same  may  be  said  of  all  good  works,  and  with  just  as 
much  propriety  might  it  be  said  that  without  them  is  it  im- 
possible to  obtain  forgiveness.  The  question  is  not  what  are 
the  fruits  of  faith,  or  what  will  a  pardoned  sinner  do,  but 
how  may  a  guilty  sinner  be  justified  before  God  ?  And  to  say 
that  without  first  obtaining  the  victory  over  his  sins,  and  be- 
coming obedient  to  Christ,  and  loving  holiness,  and  all  that, 
he  cannot  be  pardoned,  is  just  to  contradict  the  inspired  writ- 
ers, and  cut  off  the  sinner  from  all  hope.  The  love  of  Grod 
is  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Grhost,  which  is  given 
unto  us  '  not  before  our  pardon  or  justification,  but  after  it.' '' 

Quum  impossihile  sit  diligere  Deum,  nisi prius  fide  appre- 
hendatur  remissio  peccatorumJ' — (Apol.  Conf.) 

If  any  one  imagine  that  we  are  contending  about  words,  or 
that  there  is  no  great  difference  between  the  views  as  set 
forth  in  the  paragraph  quoted  from  the  Lutheran  Sj/mbols," 
and  what  is  to  be  found  in  the  Bible  and  standard  authorities, 
we  venture  to  think  that  he  does  not  understand  the  subject. 


3(3 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


Small  as  the  difference  may,  perhaps,  appear  to  such  a  one, 
it  amounts  to  just  this,  whether  the  sinner  will  come  to  Christ 
to  be  saved  from  his  sins,  or  first  get  rid  of  his  sins  himself, 
and  then  come  to  he  justified  and  accepted.  Says  Coleridge : 
To  many — to  myself  formerly — it  has  appeared  a  mere 
dispute  about  words }  but  it  is  by  no  means  of  so  harmless  a 
character,  for  it  tends  to  give  a  false  direction  to  our  thoughts, 
by  diverting  the  conscience  from  the  ruined  and  corrupted 
state,  in  which  we  are  without  Christ.  Sin  is  the  disease. — 
What  is  the  remedy  ?  What  is  the  antidote  ?  Charity  ?  Pshaw  ! 
Charity  in  the  large  apostolic  sense  of  the  term,  is  the  health, 
the  state  to  be  obtained  by  the  use  of  the  remedy,  not  the 
sovereign  balm  itself, — faith  of  grace — faith  in  the  Grod-man- 
hood,  the  cross,  the  mediation,  and  perfected  righteousness  of 
Jesus,  to  the  utter  rejection  and  abjuration  of  all  righteous- 
ness of  our  own.    Faith  alone  is  the  restorative  Faith  is 

the  source — charity,  that  is,  the  whole  Christian  life,  is  the 
stream  from  it.  .  . 

Such  a  view  of  justification,  even  were  it  possible,  would 
deprive  the  penitent  believer  of  all  peace  of  conscience  and 
solid  comfort :  as  it  would  lead  him,  instead  of  confiding  in 
the  all-sufficiency  of  Christ  to  cover  all  his  sins,  to  be  prying 
into  his  own  imperfect  and  broken  obedience  to  settle  the 
question  of  his  standing  before  God.  If  his  sins  will  only  be 
forgiven  as  he  subdues  them,  and  loves  and  serves  Christ,  he 
must  be  in  continual  doubt,  as  to  whether  his  love  and  service 
are  sufficient  to  render  him  a  fit  subject  for  divine  mercy. 
The  only  ground  of  solid  peace  and  comfort — the  only  posi- 
tion in  which  we  can  maintain  a  firm  and  stable  footing  against 
the  rigorous  demands  of  divine  justice  and  the  disquietudes 
of  our  own  consciences,  is,  discarding  all  merit  of  our  own, 
and  all  conditions  of  pardon,  save  faith  in  Christ  alone. 

The  influence  too,  of  such  doctrine  on  the  pulpit,  or  the 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


37 


preacliing  of  tlie  gospel,  must  be  most  paralyzing.  Just  sup- 
pose that  when  the  Philippian  jailor  came  trembling  to  Paul, 
and  asking,  ''What  must  I  do  to  be  saved instead  of  an- 
swering, ''Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt 
be  saved,"  he  had  said,  unless  you  become  entirely  changed, 
conquering  every  one  of  your  sins,  obeying  and  serving  and 
loving  Christ,  you  cannot  be  forgiven  !  Carry  this  doctrine 
to  the  heathen  world,  and  what  would  be  the  result  ?  Apply 
it  to  any  conscience-smitten,  burdened  soul,  and  you  at  once 
close  the  door  of  hope,  and  give  over  to  despair.  It  would 
be  like  mocking  a  sick  man  in  his  agony,  by  telling  him  to 
get  better  and  then  go  to  the  physician. 

The  plainest  reader,  unaccustomed  to  theological  discus- 
sions, cannot  fail  to  perceive  how  directly  opposed  is  this  the- 
ory of  the  conditions  of  pardon  or  justification  to  the  senti- 
ments and  devotional  literature  of  the  Church.  When  the 
gospel  is  preached,  and  sinners  are  invited  to  come  to  the 
Saviour,  the  Church  unites  in  the  invitation,  singing — 

"Let  not  conscience  make  you  linger, 
Nor  of  fitness  fondly  dream ; 
All  the  fitness  he  requireth, 
Is  to  feel  your  need  of  him. 
*        *        -Sf        *        *  * 
Come,  ye  weary,  heavy  laden. 
Lost  and  ruined  by  the  fall, 
If  you  tarry  till  you're  better, 
You  will  never  come  at  all : 
Not  the  righteous — 
Sinners  Jesus  came  to  call." 

And  when  the  sinner,  burdened  with  guilt,  and  read}^  to 
perish,  is  constrained  to  flee  for  refuge  to  Christ,  instead  of 
looking  to  his  own  virtues  or  acts,  as  having  anything  to  do 
with  the  conditions  of  his  pardon  and  acceptance,  he  looks  to 
Christ,  and  says : 
4 


88 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


"  Just  as  I  am,  without  one  plea 
But  that  thy  blood  was  shed  for  me, 
Ajid  that  thou  bidd'st  me  come  to  thee, 

0  Lamb  of  God,  I  come! 
.  Just  as  I  am,  and  waiting  not 
To  rid  mj  soul  of  one  dark  blot — 
To  thee  whose  blood  can  cleanse  each  spot, 

0  Lamb  of  God,  I  come ! 

How  very  different  from  this,  if  tlie  view  set  forth  in  tlie 
'^Lutheran  jSj/mhoIs"  prevail,  must  be  the  language  addressed 
to  penitent  sinners,  and  how  diificult  the  manner  of  their 
approach  to  Christ ! 

Much  more  might  have  been  said  on  all  the  points  that  have 
been  touched,  and  the  bearing  of  these  doctrines  upon  each 
other,  and  the  whole  system  of  truth  more  fully  considered; 
but  we  have  endeavoured  to  avoid  saying  too  much.  The 
writer  has  no  leaning  towards  Symbolism,  and  no  motive  to 
oppose  those  who  take  to  themselves  the  name  of  American 
Lutherans.  A  vindication  of  the  truth  has  been  his  only  aim. 
The  truth  can  have  nothing  to  fear  from  open  discussion. 

The  high  source  whence  these  views  have  emanated,  the 
favourable  opportunity  enjoyed  for  inculcating  them,  the  zeal 
manifested  in  propagating  them  abroad,  all  combine  to  give 
them  importance.  We  have  ventured  to  apply  to  them  the 
term  <*A^ew  Theology/.  All  who  examine  this  theology  with 
care,  comparing  it  with  the  word  of  Grod,  and  the  long  received 
doctrines  of  the  whole  evangelical  church,  will,  we  think, 
unite  in  pronouncing  it  neio.  It  differs  very  widely  from  the 
theology  of  the  reformers,  the  old  English  divines,  and  modern 
standard  authors  in  Grermany,  England  and  America.  If  it 
does  not  lay  another  foundation  "  than  that  is  laid,"  it  builds 
upon  this  foundation  wood,  hay,  stubble.  Whether  the 
Church  will,  after  due  examination  and  reflection,  retain  this 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


39 


New  Theology  instead  of  the  old,  is  very  doubtful.  Indeed 
we  feel  the  most  confident  assurance,  that  the  Church  will  yet, 
and  ere  long,  so  far  as  these  great  doctrines  are  concerned, 
hearken  to  her  Redeemer,  saying:  Stand  ye  in  the  loays, 
and  see,  and  ask  for  the  old  paths,  lohere  is  the  good  way,  and 
walk  thereiny  and  ye  shall  find  rest  for  your  souls." 


REPLY  TO  DR.  S.  S.  S.'S  ARTICLE. 


As  the  reply  of  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  had  been  heralded  with  con- 
siderable ^'flourish  of  trumpets/'  it  was  looked  for  with  no 
small  degree  of  interest.  His  friends  expected  that  he  would 
explain  all  misunderstandings,  remove  all  difficulties,  and 
make  an  end  of  controversy."  Whether  their  expectations 
have  been  met,  and  the  Observer's  promise,  of  a  full  and 
satisfactory  reply"  fulfilled  it,  is  not  for  the  writer  to  say,  further 
than  that  some  of  them  have  expressed  great  disappointment, 
and  not  a  little  dissatisfaction.  He  does  not  deign  to  make  a 
regular  reply,  but  assigns  four  reasons  why  he  "  declines  the 
formal  discussion  of  the  article" — doing,  no  doubt  however, 
what  he  considers  his  very  best,  under  this  plea  of  not  reply- 
ing. These  four  reasons  are  sufficiently  curious,  and  the 
whole  article  should  be  preserved  as  a  rare  specimen  of 
theological  disputation.  The  writer  may  be  allowed  to  say, 
in  advance,  that  a  more  disingenuous  and  unfair  production 
it  has  never  been  his  lot  to  examine;  and  most  sincerely  does 
he  regret  the  course  taken  by  Dr.  S.  S.  S.,  not  because  the 
harsh  epithets  and  bitter  invectives  of  that  performance  disturb 
or  frighten  him,  for  these  prove  nothing,  except  the  spirit  with 
which  they  were  written — but  because  such  a  course  can  add 
nothing  to  the  reputation  of  the  author,  or  the  welfare  of 
Zion,  and  it  imposes  the  necessity  of  saying  in  reply,  what 
should  have  no  place  in  such  a  discussion.    If  therefore  this 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


41 


examination  should  have  more  that  is  personal  than  is  desirable, 
or  under  ordinary  circumstances  warrantable,  the  cause  and  the 
/        justification  will  both  be  found  in  the  peculiar  character  of 
the  production  examined. 

Before  proceeding  to  .the  main  points,  there  are  some  minor 
and  incidental  matters  that  require  a  passing  notice.  The 
author  tells  us  he  '^felt  it  a  sacred  duty  to  publish  ^American 
Lutherarvism  Vindicated,'  in  order,  in  connection  with  the 
Definite  Platform,  to  turn  back  the  tide  of  symbolic  or  Old 
Lutheran  encroachments.^^  He  might  have  awarded  the  writer 
at  least  the  same  degree  of  conscientiousness,  or  sense  of  sacred 
duty,'^  and  not  have  ascribed  his  strictures  on  that  production 
to  contracted  bigotry'^  and  ^'  unamiable  recklessness.^^  He 
seems  to  think  the  refutation  of  this  work  a  difficult  under- 
taking," because  two  writers  chose  to  notice  different  parts  of 
it,  and  supposes  they  had  recourse  to  one  of  the  most 
approved  principles  of  Political  Economy,  the  division  of 
labor. Why  only  these  two  are  referred  to,  in  this  division 
of  labor,''  is  not  known,  since  these  are  not  the  only  writers, 
who  in  the  Review  or  elsewhere,  have  taken  exceptions  to 
^Hhe  unanswerable  arguments"  of  that  book;  but  it  may  be 
due  to  the  cause  of  truth,  and  to  that  other  writer,  just  to  say, 
that  these  two  had  no  consultation  or  agreement  whatever,  in 
the  matter,  nor  did  the  one  know  anything  of  the  labor  of  the 
other,  until  it  was  completed.  This,  together  with  the  fact,  that 
Dr.  3.  S.  S.  has  been  pleased  to  style  the  writer  a  self-con- 
stituted critic,"  may  be  a  sufficient  reply  to  the  charge,  industri- 
ously circulated,  of  his  being  a  tool  for  others.  There  is 
nothing  unnatural  in  the  partiality  of  the  author  for  his  own 
production,  a  kind  of  parental  fondness  noticed  even  by  the 
old  heathen  philosophers,  but  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  must  not  be  sur- 
prised if  others  should  think  much  less  of  a  volume,  abounding 
in   inaccuracies,  inconsistencies,    and   fundamental  errors. 

4* 


42 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


Some  of  these  have  already  been  pointed  out,  and  the  author's 
colleague  in  the  Seminary  is  constrained  to  offer  as  an  apology 
for  the  numerous  and  gross  blunders  in  the  book,  the  unfor- 
tunate inattention  and  haste,  the  traces  of  which  so  surprisingly 
abound  on  its  pages.''  (Ev.  Review,  January  1857.  p.  344.) 
As  the  other  writer  is  abundantly  able  to  answer  for  himself, 
nothing;  more  need  here  be  said  in  his  defence  :  but  if  Dr.  S. 
S.  S.  was  so  deeply  concerned  for  the  peace  of  our  Zion/' 
it  would  have  been  better  shown  by  never  starting  this 
unhappy  controversy. 

It  is  alleged  against  the  writer  that  his  charge  of  funda- 
mental heresy,  when,  in  the  same  book,  we  reiterate  and  avow 
the  entire  articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  on  the  disputed 
doctrines,  savors  too  much  of  contracted  bigotry,  to  require  a 
serious  refutation.''  The  author  of  this  language  cannot  be 
so  ignorant  of  the  teachings  of  church  history  as  not  to 
know  that  the  most  dangerous  and  destructive  heresies  have 
been  propagated  by  men  professing  the  most  orthodox  creeds. 
Such  reasoning  may  suit  some  men,  but  will  avail  but  little 
with  the  well  informed  and  reflecting.  The  not  deigning  to 
make  a  formal  reply  would  have  looked  more  like  real  indif- 
ference or  contempt  for  the  article  in  the  Keview,  had  not  so 
much  zeal  been  shown  in  various  ways,  to  divert  attention, 
even  to  the  publishing  of  a  pamphlet,  with  a  false  title,  and 
sending  it  where  the  Review  had  not  gone.  As  it  is,  the 
impression  cannot  now  but  be  made,  that  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  hoped 
to  escape,  by  decrying  the  writer.  This  device  however  will 
not  succeed,  and  he  may  be  assured,  that  his  well  meant  blows 
have  fallen  harmless.  The  writer  is  not  to  be  turned  aside 
from  the  real  points  at  issue.  He  may  say  what  he  deems 
necessary  to  his  own  vindication  from  such  personal  assaults, 
but  his  chief  anxiety  will  be  to  bring  out  and  defend  the  truth. 

What  is  to  follow  will  be  divided  into  two  parts — an  exami- 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


43 


nation  of  the  reasons  assigned  for  not  entering  upon  a  formal 
discussion"  of  the  article  in  the  Review,  and  some  further 
notice  of  the  disputed  points,  with  what  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  has  said 
in  defence  of  his  views. 

I.  The  reasons  assio-ned  for  not  discussino;  our  article 
are — the  writer's  "  glaring  misapprehensions  and  consequent 
misrepresentations" — ^^his  manifest  want  of  acquaintance  with 
Lutheran  Theology" — his  being  confused  and  unsystem- 
atic"— and  the  spirit  of  the  article,"  not  being  ^'such  as 
became  him,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case."  As  these 
reasons  have  no  logical  connection,  the  author,  it  is  hoped, 
will  excuse  the  writer's  logic,  if  he  should  choose  to  consider 
them  in  a  different  order  from  that  in  which  they  are  stated. 

'1.  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  says  ^Hlie  spirit  of  Rev.  B's  article  is  gener- 
olly  thought  not  to  he  such  as  became  him,  under  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case."  How  he  obtained  this  general  opinion 
of  the  church,  his  readers  are  not  informed,  nor  is  it  known, 
unless  perhaps  he  assumes  the  right  to  think  for  the  church; 
but  the  writer  may  be  allowed  to  say,  that  very  many  have 
thought  quite  differently,  and  some  of  Dr.  S.  S.  S's  warmest 
friends  have  commended  the  spirit  of  the  article.  It  is  natu- 
ral, that  the  author  reviewed  should  not  be  particularly  pleased 
with  the  spirit  of  the  review,  since  it  did  not  seek  to  commend 
his  opinions.  But  "  de  gustibus  non  disputandum,"  and  this 
point  must  be  left  for  others  to  decide.  Had  Dr.  S.  S.  S. 
however,  shown  a  little  better  spirit  himself,  his  objection 
would  have  come  with  more  grace,  and  might  have  had  quite 
as  much  force.  The  spirit  of  his  article  may  be  judged  from 
a  few  specimens.  It  extends  over  only  some  ten  pages,  and 
yet  in  this  narrow  compass  there  is  found  room  for  such 
terms  as  these — contracted  higotry^' — ic ant  of  ability  or 
disposition"^ — self  constituted  critic^' — cloudy  reviewer" — 

revieioer^  s  ohtuseness" — "volunteer  champion" — "  nnamia- 


44 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


hie  recMessness^' — victim  of  delusive  prejudice  and  self -confi- 
dence.'' These  are  rather  harsh  terms  for  a  dignified 
theological  professor  to  employ  towards  one,  who  simply 
ventured  to  question  the  soundness  of  some  views  he  had 
published ;  and  it  is  to  be  feared  that  they  will  do  as  much 
damage  to  their  author,  as  to  the  individual  to  whom  they 
are  so  liberally  applied.  Strong  arguments  and  soft  words 
would  have  been  more  effective,  as  well  as  more  to  the  credit 
both  of  the  author's  head  and  heart.  He  seems  to  have 
forgotten  his  own  counsel,  in  ^'American  Luther anism,"  p. 
16,  and  where  he  introduces  the  Leyden  Cobbler  to  prove, 
who  is  wrong  in  the  argument,  by  seeing  wlio  gets  angry 

fivstr 

But  no  doubt  he  regards  the  provocation  as  very  great,  and 
perhaps  justifying  such  a  departure  from  his  usual  smooth 
and  courteous  manner.  What  he  means,  by  "  the  circumstan- 
ces of  the  case,''  is  not  so  clear;  but  perhaps  it  refers  to  the 
relative  age,  position,  attainments,  etc.,  of  the  reviewer  and 
the  reviewed.  lie  is  vastly  indignant,  that  a  mere  preacher 
of  the  gospel,  with  scanty  leisure  for  theological  study,'' 
should  presume  to  call  in  question  the  views  of  a  learned  pro- 
fessor of  theology.  ''Some  apology  may  be  found,"  he  admits, 
for  the  writer's  ''  want  of  acquaintance  with  Lutheran  Theo- 
logy,'^ in  his  ''  training  in  another  denomination.'^  It  was 
very  kind  in  the  author  to  furnish  some  apology  for  these  defi- 
ciencies, but  the  writer  is  unwilling  to  avail  himself  of  any 
advantage  to  which  he  is  not  fairly  entitled,  and  he  can  claim 
less  in  this  respect  than  has  been  awarded  him.  As  this  is 
not  the  first  time,  that  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  has  resorted  to  such  a 
mode  of  controversy,  it  may  be  well  just  to  state  simple  facts, 
and  allow  the  reader  to  determine  on  whose  side  the  strength 
of  this  argument  lies.  The  writer  was  honorably  graduated 
in  a  Lutheran  College — Dr.  S.  S.  S.  was  not.    Dr.  S.  S.  S. 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


45 


did  studj  theology  under  the  influence  of  ''another  denomina- 
tion" in  one  of  her  theological  Seminaries — the  writer  did 
not.  The  writer  had  been  endeavoring  to  preach  the  Grospel 
some  twelve  years  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  when  he  ventured 
on  a  review  of  some  of  Dr.  S.  S.  S.'s  opinions,  a  period,  he 
believes  somewhat  longer  than  that  author  had  been  preaching, 
when  he  attempted  to  write  a  work  on  theology,  and  which 
contains  some  of  the  opinions  reviewed.  The  facilities  for 
theological  investigation  are  quite  as  great  in  the  Lutheran 
Church,  of  this  country,  at  the  present  time,  as  they  were 
thirty-five  or  forty  years  ago.  Such  allusions,  it  is  felt,  are 
entirely  out  of  place  in  a  doctrinal  discussion,  but  since  Dr. 
S.  S.  S.  has  seen  fit  to  introduce  them,  the  reader  must  deter- 
mine with  how  much  propriety  on  his  part.  And  as  to  his 
^preaching  the  gospel  before  the  wr^iter  was  horn^  he  should 
also  remember,  that  the  Reformers  had  been  in  heaven  some 
centuries,  and  their  memories  embalmed  in  the  hearts  of  all 
Protestant  Christendom,  before  he  undertook  the  thankless 
task  of  traducing  them  before  the  Church  and  the  world,  as 
the  authors  of  superstitious  and  truly  dangerous  err  or  s.^^ 
(Am.  Luth.  p.  34.)  The  atrocious  crime  ofheing  a  young 
man^^  is  a  charge  that  has  been  so  often  preferred,  and  so 
often  met,  that  one  would  scarcely  have  expected  to  meet  it 
again  in  this  discussion )  but  in  default  of  something  better, 
men  are  often  compelled  to  resort  to  very  stale  and  foolish 
substitutes  for  argument. 

Some  other  things  are  jumbled  together  under  this  head, 
that  will  be  more  fitly  answered  in  another  place.  The  writer 
does  not  exactly  understand  what  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  means  in  repre- 
senting him  as  having  ''undertaken  to  denounce,"  but  begs  to 
assure  him,  that  he  has  left  this  work  entirelv  to  himself  and 
friends ;  and  if  he  can  produce  from  the  article  in  the  "Review, 
a  single  denunciatory  sentence,  it  will  be  retracted.  But  before 


46 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


leaving  this  point,  and  even  at  tlie  risk  of  being  considered 
less  amiable,  the  writer  must  venture  to  assure  Dr.  S.  S.  S., 
that  he  knows  of  nothing,  in  his  talents  or  attainments,  that 
warrants  him  in  assuming  such  a  lordly  superiority  over  his 
brethren ;  nor  has  he  been  able  to  discover,  in  his  writings, 
any  such  depth  of  research,  or  profundity  of  thought,  as  to 
make  him  regard  it  as  a  presumptuous  act,  even  for  him,  to 
undertake  the  task  of  reviewing  them.  The  following  lan- 
guage, in  American  Lutheranism,"  is  recommended  to  the 
careful  consideration  of  the  author:  ^'  The  disposition  occasion- 
ally evinced,  to  ^  frown  down  discussion  by  invective  and 
denunciation,  is  not  only  illogical,  as  it  proves  neither  the 
affirmative  nor  negative  of  the  disputed  question ;  but  in  this 
free  country,  where  we  acknowledge  no  popes,  and  in  the 
judgment  of  free  Americans,  who  think  for  themselves,  it 
must  always  reflect  unfavorably  on  its  authors." 

2.  Another  reason  assigned  is — Because  the  entire  article 
of  Rev.  B.  is  confused  and  unsystematic,  showing  that  he  has 
studied  Belles  Lettres  more  successfully  than  Logic  or  Her- 
meneutics.  Thus  he  has  but  two  captions  in  his  article... but 
in  reality,  he  discusses  three  - topics. The  writer  had  occa- 
sion to  introduce,  incidentally,  natural  depravity,  without  any 
design  of  entering  into  a  proper  discussion  of  that  topic ;  but 
Dr.  S.  S.  S.  is  so  severely  logical,  that  he  thinks  it  a  sufficient 
reason  for  not  discussing  an  article,  because  it  is  divided  into 
two  parts  instead  of  three.  This  is  more  than  amusing,'^  it 
is  ludicrous — ludicrous  in  the  extreme.  Suppose  the  writer 
had  undertaken  to  discuss  only  one  topic,  justification,  and 
had  introduced  depravity  and  regeneration  to  illustrate  the 
subject,  would  it  be  necessary  to  make  three  captions  f  Or 
would  he  not  dare,  without  offence  to  the  author's  logical 
sense,  to  discuss  sanctification,  unless  he  should  make  four 
captions^  depravity,  regeneration,  justification  and  sanctifica- 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


47 


tion  ?  The  author  seems  to  be  rather  vain  of  his  logic,  but 
if  it  answers  him  no  better  purpose  than  it  has  in  the  writing 
of  American  Luther anism,'^  or  his  article  in  the  Review^ 
it  must  be  of  very  little  service.  But  more  upon  this  subject 
by  and  by. 

What  particular  application  is  intended  by  the  charge  of 
no  discrimination  between  the  facts  of  a  doctrine,  and  diifer- 
ent  philosophical  explanations  of  it :  no  clear  perception  of  the 
difference  between  its  fundamental  features,  and  its  collateral 
aspects,^'  we  are  not  informed.  Perhaps  these  sounding 
words  were  only  designed  for  the  amusement  of  the  reader,  or 
to  impress  him  with  the  amazing  penetration  and  discrimination 
of  the  author.  Most  persons,  however,  will  likely  agree  with 
the  editors  of  the  Review,  (Luth.  Observer,  August  28,)  in 
regarding  the  points  discussed,  as  ''fundamental  in  tbe 
Christian  system."  If  the  author  wishes  to  shield  his  views 
under  the  specious  and  imposing  name  of  philosophi/,  the  less 
of  such  philosophy  the  better. 

The  writer's  ''mode  of  interpretation"  is  found  fault  with 
for  "wresting  passages  from  the  context,  and  considering  them 
apart  from  other  portions  of  the  work."  He  is  not  aware  that 
any  unfairness  was  used,  and  believes  that  all  the  passages 
quoted  were  given  in  their  fair,  legitimate  import;  but  this 
objection  comes  with  ill  grace,  since  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  has  not  only 
pursued  such  a  "mode  of  interpretation"  for  years,  in  regard 
to  the  writings  of  the  Reformers,  but  in  this  very  article  con- 
taining the  charge,  in  almost  every  instance,  the  quotations 
are  garbled,  mistranslated,  or  perverted.  Of  this  the  reader 
can  satisfy  himself  by  examining  the  authorities  referred  to 
or  cited. 

What  is  said,  under  this  head,  about  Pelagianism  and  some 
other  isms,  shows  either  that  the  author  has  mistaken  the 
meaning  of  these  terms,  or  else  was  willing  to  impose  on  his 


48 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


readers.  Who  ever  heard,  that  power  of  choice,  or  freedom 
of  the  will,  was  synonymous  with  Pelagianism?  Nor  is  the 
use  of  other  terms  more  happy.  It  would  be  well  for  the 
author,  before  he  compares  different  and  conflicting  statements 
in  his  works,  with  different  statements  in  the  Bible,  to  be  sure 
of  one  thing — that  he  is  inspired  or  infallible,  so  that  a  con- 
tradiction is  impossible.  Having  first  satisfied  ourselves  of 
the  inspiration  of  the  word  of  Grod,  we  assume  that  the  writers 
cannot  contradict  themselves  ;  and  if  he  can  substantiate  such 
a  claim,  then  his  writings  are  entitled  to  the  same  deference 
in  their  interpretation  as  the  Bible ;  but  if  he  cannot,  it  may 
be  lawful  to  assume  the  possibility  of  error,  of  inconsistency 
or  contradiction.  The  writer,  however,  must  be  allowed  to 
deny  that  Dr.  S.  S.  S.,  or  any  other,  can  convict  the  "inspired 
servants  of  God,"  "  and  even  the  blessed  Saviour  himself'  of 
such  errors  as  he  alleges. 

Whilst  on  this  subject  of  ''confusion  and  want  of  system," 
it  may  be  just  as  well  to  notice  one  or  two  other  points  intro- 
duced by  the  author,  in  a  different  connection.    He  admits 
the '' reviewer  may  be  a  faithful  preacher  of  the  Gospel  of 
Christ,  and  a  successful  co-worker"  with  others,  but  at  the 
same  time,  labors  to  show  that  he  is  "cloudi/''  and  '^obtuse/' 
and  lacks  "  either  the  ability  or  disposition,''  to  comprehend 
what  others  have  written  on  the  subjects  of  regeneration  and 
justification.  Perhaps  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  does  not  regard  clear  views  of 
sin,  regeneration  and  justification,  as  very  important  to  the  faith- 
ful and  successful  preaching  of  the  Gospel.    It  is  said,  that  he 
is  fond  of  preaching  on  War,  Slavery,  the  Laws  of  the  Uni- 
verse, Natural  Theology,  and  kindred  topics;  leaving  to  humbler 
intellects  the  treatment  of  sin,  repentance,  faith,  justification, 
and  other  Christian  doctrines.     It  is  very  much  doubted, 
however,  whether  the  church  generally  will  agree  with  him, 
in  holding,  either  that  the  "  scanty  leisure"  of  ministers  does 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY.  49 

not  afford  tliem  opportunity  to  study  these  fundamental  doc- 
trines, or  that  a  clear  understanding  of  them  is  not  necessary 
to  those,  who  are  expected  to  be  continually  preaching  them 
Since  he  has  referred  the  question  to  others,  as  to  whether 
the  writer's  confusion  arose  from  ^^want  of  system  in  his  own 
mind,"  or  obscurity  in  the  author's  representations  OT 
truth,"  he  will  allow  the  introduction  of  a  single  witness  on 
this  point.  Dr.  W.  J.  Mann,  who  is  not  particularly  sus- 
pected of  any  want  of  comprehension,  or  of  systematic  mental 
training,  says  in  his  late  work,  ('^  Lutheranism  in  America," 
p.  52.) — Wehfive  vainly  endeavored  to  understand  the  vieivs 
which  Dr.  S.  S.  Sclimucker  entertains  in  regard  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Sacraments.  Formerly^  we  thought  loeJcnew  what 
the  reverend  Doctor  means,  hut  since  the  appearance  of  the 
^American  Luthera.nism  Vindicated,^  we  find  ourselves  com- 
pletely in  the  dark^  Upon  the  subjects  of  regeneration  and 
justification.  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  is  at  least  as  confused  and  inconsis- 
tent as  he  is  upon  the  Sacraments:  but  this  will  appear  here- 
after. 

3.  The  next  reason  is,  ^'his  manifest  want  of  acquaintance 
with  Lutheran  Theology  "  This  charge  is  based  on  the  fact 
of  the  writer's  quoting  a  few  standard  authorities,  that  were 
not  Lutheran.  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  says,  "Were  not  the  subject  too 
grave  a  one,  it  would  be  purely  amusing  to  behold  a  man  step 
forward  as  volunteer  champion  of  orthodoxy  in  the  Lutheran 
Church,  adducing  as  authority  to  sustain  his  positions,  not 
Lutheran,  but  Calvinistic  divines:  to  find  him  cite,  not  the 
illustrious  Lutheran  Theologians  of  the  sixteenth,  seventeenth, 
eighteenth  or  nineteenth  century;  but  the  hightoned  Calvinist 
Edwards,  the  Congregational ist,  Dwight,  and  Dick  and  Chal- 
mers, and  even  the  erratic  opium-eater,  Coleridge  !"  Now  the 
writer,  in  his  article  in  the  Review,  stated  distinctly  his  rea- 
sons for  citinsc  these  authors.  Lutheran  authorities  were  at 
5 


50 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


hand,  lying  on  his  table  when  the  article  was  written,  and 
w^ould  have  been  adduced,  but  for  the  reasons  stated — their 
well  known  views  on  the  subject  under  discussion,  and  their 
liability  to  the  charge  of  Symbolism. 

But,  if- the  lo^ie  of  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  sustains  his  conclusion,  it 
proves  more  than  he  might  wish — it  would  prove  his  own 
"want  of  acquaintance  with  Lutheran  Theology for  he 
habitually  cites  some  of  these  very  same  authors,  and  but  sel- 
dom supports  his  views  by  the  "  illustrious  Lutheran  Theolo- 
gians.'' To  satisfy. himself  on  this  point  the  reader  need  only 
look  into  the  index  of  the  "Popular  Theology,"  or  the  preface 
to  "American  Lutheranism,"  p.  7.  Besides,  Dr.  S.  S.  S.'s 
students  assure  the  writer,  that  these  are  the  very  authors 
recommended  by  him  in  the  Theological  Seminary,  and  that 
their  names  will  be  found  in  notes  taken  from  his  lips !  i  The 
writer  is  not  ashamed  to  confess  his  profund  reverence  for  such 
men  as  Edwards,  and  Dwight,  and  Alexander,  and  Dick,  and 
Chalmers,  and  even  the  erratic  opium-eater,  Coleridge :  and 
how  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  will  look  his  students  in  the  face,  when  again 
recommending  them,  after  having  sneered  at  them,  it  is  not 
easy  to  conceive.  Whether  he  will  add  to  his  reputation, 
either  in  theology,  or  in  liberality  of  views,  by  such  contemp- 
tuous treatment  of  these  names,  is  more  than  doubtful.  .  Des- 
perate indeed  must  be  the  cause  that  requires  recourse  to  such 
means  of  defense. 

But  what  makes  the  case  still  stronger,  is  the  well  known  fact, 
of  which  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  cannot  be  ignorant,  that  the  "illustri- 
ous Lutheran  Theologians"  dilier  from  him  on  the  very  points 
upon  which  he  complains  of  their  not  being  cited.  As  Dr. 
S.  S.  S.  has  all  of  a  sudden  fallen  in  love  with  these  divines, 
he  will  be  gratified  with  the  assurance,  that  although  the  wri- 
ter's leisure  may  have  been  more  scanty  than  his  own,  he  has 
found  time  to  acquaint  himself  slightly  with  the  views  of  some 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


51 


of  these  great  meR,  and  that  next  to  the  Bible,  he  owes  to 
them  his  dissatisfaction  with  the  meagre  and  superficial  the- 
ology of  the  author.  The  achievements  of  the  distinguished 
theologians  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the  old  world,  must 
excite  the  admiration  of  all  who  know  what  they  have  done, 
and  make  us  feel  that  American  Lutheranisni  is  advancing  "  non 
passibus  acquis." 

4.  The  writer's  glaring  misapprehensions  and  consequent 
misrepresentations"  is  the  other  reason  assigned  for  not  dis- 
cussing the  article.  Upon  this  point  not  much  need  be  said 
here,  as  this  involves  the  very  matters  in  dispute,  and  which 
will  occupy  the  second  part  of  this  new  discussion.  But  it 
may  be  well  to  remind  the  reader  that  some  of  "  the  divines 
and  intelligent  laity  of  our  Church,"  and  '-distinguished  theo- 
logians of  other  churches,"  have  made  the  very  same  ^^misap- 
prehensions."   Whether  it  is  to  be  set  down  to  the  score  of 

ohtuseness,^^  or  '^persecution,"  or  something  else,  the  fact 
is  indisputable.  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  himself  tells  us  of  Br.  Schafif, 
whose  ability  is  acknowledged  in  both  hemispheres,  charging 
him  with  denying  the  reality  as  well  as  the  guilt  of  natural 
depravity."  Dr.  Mann,  as  will  be  seen  hereafter,  understands 
Dr.  S.  S.  S.  as  having  taught  the  view  of  justification  set  forth 
by  the  writer  in  the  Review :  and  did  the  writer  feel  himself 
at  liberty  to  use  private  letters,  he  could  easily  prove  that  very 
many  of  the  leading  divines,  at  least  in  this  section  of  the 
Church,  agree  with  him  in  his  apprehensions  or  misapprehen- 
sions of  that  book.  It  will  be  remembered  by  many  that 
some  two  years  ago,  when  the  writer  had  occasion  to  offer  some 
strictures  on  the  so-called  Definite  Synodical  Platform,"  he 
was  met  by  the  same  cry  of  misapprehension,  obtuseness,  pre- 
judice, bigotry,  etc.;  but  it  is  a  little  significant  that  the  parts 
objected  to  disappeared  in  future  editions.  It  is  quite  likely 
that  those  who  live,  will  see  a  similar  expurgation  of  the 


52 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


works  contaioiDg  the  paragraphs  reviewed  in  this  pamphlet; 
and  should  these  discnssions  aecomplisli  no  other  good  than 
to  purify  our  cliurch  literature  from  such  excresences^  the 
writer  will  not  consider  his  labor  altogether  in  vain. 

II.  Having  disposed  of  Dr.  S.  S.  S.'s  reasons  for  not  dis- 
cussing our  article  in  the  IlevieWj  it  remains  to  notice  what 
he  has  said  in  explanation  or  defense  of  his  own  views.  Na- 
tural depravity,  or  original  sin,  was  introduced  into  that  arti- 
cle only  incidentally,  and  limited  to  one  or  two  paragraphs; 
but  as  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  finds  fault  with  the  arrangement  or  divi- 
sion of  subjects,  and  bestows  considerable  labor  on  this  point, 
the  writer  will  gratify  him  by  making  three  captions  instead 
of  two. 

I.— Natural  Depravity,  or  Original  Sin. 

Some  exceptions  were  taken  to  presenting  natural  depravity 
simply  as  a  disorder  of  the  mental  and  bodily  constitution,'' 
because  it  left  out  of  view  the  moral  element  of  our  being. 
It  must  be  very  clear  to  every  one  who  reads  the  article,  that 
the  objection  was  not  to  calhng  sin  a  disorder  or  a  disease, 
hut  a  disease  only  of  ^'the  mental  and  bodily  system;'^  and 
yet  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  labors  hard  to  make  his  readers  believe,  that 
the  objection  is  to  the  use  of  the  word  disease,  and  that  the 
writer  was  "evidently  unacquainted  with  the  fact,  that  the 
representation  of  natural  depravity  under  the  figure  of  a  dis- 
ease, is  authorized  by  the  best  Lutheran  authorities,  and  is 
also  often  met  with  among  writers  of  other  denominations ! !  I'' 
Surely  he  must  have  counted  largely  on  the  tjullihility  of  his 
readers  in  making  this  representation,  or  supposing  that  any 
one  in  the  least  acquainted  even  with  the  Bible  or  Hymn 
Book  could  be  "unacquainted"  with  so  common  a  truth.  But 
to  see  how  deliberately  he  has  misrepresented  and  perverted 
the  entire  paragraph  on  this  subject,  the  reader  is  requested 


THE  NEY>'  THEOLOGY. 


58 


to  turn  back,  and  read  it  over.  He  will  find  iu  it  tlie  foUow- 
iug  language :  '-Iu  all  seriotisness,  wotild  we  ask,  is  natural 
depraTity  nothing  more  than  a  bodily  or  mental  disorder? 
Has  it  nothing  to  do  with  the  moral  and  spiritual  nature  of 
man  ?  Is  there  nothing  in  it  that  is  corrupting,  polluting, 
defiling  to  the  soul?  Is  it  the  head  or  the  heart,  the  bodilj' 
and  mental,  or  the  moral  and  spiritual  part,  that  is  most  dis- 
eased The  point  of  the  objection  is  verj'  clear,  and  Dr. 
S.  S.  S.'s  learned  references  might  have  been  spared:  but  they 
may,  nevertheless,  serve  a  good  purpose,  iu  showing  how  lit- 
tle he  agrees  with  the  very  authors  to  whom  he  refers. 

He  asks  does  mental  philosophy  denote  the  science 
which  discusses  [i  part  of  our  ??te;z to?  faculties,  and  omits  the 
will  and  aflections  The  writer  answers,  no ;  but  moral 
philosophy  does  denote  something,  and  it  discusses  our  moral 
faculties.  Were  he  disposed  to  imitate  the  example  of  Dr. 
S.  S.  S.,  in  this  controversy,  he  might  refer  him,  for  better 
information,"  to  numerous  authorities,  ancient  and  modern, 
who  observe  and  insist  on  the  distinction  between  mind  and 
morals,  or  the  mental  and  moral  in  our  nature.  But  every 
intelligent  reader  knows  that  this  distinction  is  observed  by 
the  best  authors,  ancient  and  modern,  pagan  and  Christian. 
What  meaning  does  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  attach  to  ??ioraZ  constitution, 
moral  powers,  moral  philosophy,  moral  character — forms  of 
expression  as  current,  and  well  understood,  as  any  in  the  lan- 
guage ?  Or  does  he  ignore  these  terms?  If  3'ou  ask  what 
was  Byron's  mental  constitution,  would  any  one  understand 
by  it  his  moral  character  ?  Or  if  it  should  be  answered  that 
his  mental  powers  were  of  the  highest  order,  would  it  be  un- 
derstood that  he  exemplified  the  most  exalted  morality  ?  Do 
we  not  dail}^  hear  of  those  who  are  receiving  mental  without 
moral  training  ?  Indeed,  this  distinction  is  so  common,  and 
so  well  understood,  that  it  seems  a  useless  expenditure  of 


54 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGl. 


paper  and  ink  to  point  otit  or  illustrate  it.  Disorder  of  the 
mental  and  bodily  system'^  may  be  insanity,  idiocy,  frenzy, 
delirium,  hypochondria,  or  something  of  like  kind ;  but  sin  is 
a  moral  disease.  And  this  distinction,  grounded  in  the  na- 
ture of  man,  and  observed  by  standard  writers,  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  is 
the  less  excusable  for  neglecting,  since,  as  a  theological  pro- 
fessor, he  has  cliiefiy  to  do  "vyith  the  moral  side  of  this  sub- 
ject. 

But  he  pretends  that  his  views  accord  with  the  best  authori- 
ties, and  that  his  definition  is  sanctioned  even  by  our  Sym- 
bolical Books  !  I  !  ("a  mode  of  definition  adopted  even  by 
the  Form  of  Concord.'')  He  is,  however,  very  careful,  and 
for  good  reasons,  not  to  quote  the  passage,  but  contents  him- 
self with  a  simple  reference  to  Muller's  S.  B.,  p.  520.  For 
the  convenience  of  the  reader  the  passage  will  be  quoted,  and 
then  it  can  be  seen  how  much  truth  there  is  in  the  allegation. 

We  helieve,  teacJij  and  confess,  that  original  sin  is  not  a  su- 
perjicialy  hut  so  deej)  a  corruption  of  human  nature,  that  no- 
thing sound  or  uncorrupt  remains  in  the  hody  and  soul  of 
man,  his  internal  and  external  "powers  (in  corpore  et  anima 
hominis,  atque  adeo  in  interiorihtis  et  exteriorihus  virihus."') 
Neither  amina  in  Latin,  nor  sede  in  German,  corresponds 
with  our  English  word  mental,  as  every  scholar  knows ;  and 
Dr.  S.  S.  S.  will  need  to  be  careful  of  his  reputation  in  Her- 
menutics,  if  he  makes  many  such  exhibitions  of  his  skill  in 
that  department. 

The  authorities  cited  by  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  happen  to  be  against 
him  and  with  the  writer,  on  this  point.  Thus,  the  Form  of 
Concord  calls  it  lepra  quad  am  s^miTUALi,''  (a  kind  of  spir- 
itual leprosy.)  His  own  quotation  of  two  words  moralische 
Krankheif^)  from  Heinhard  is  quite  sufficient  from  that  au- 
thor. It  v^ill  hardly  be  maintained  that  moralische  means 
either  mental  or  bodily.    That  this  corruption  is  especially  in 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


55 


the  soul,  Baumgarten  S3.ys  is  proved  by  the  moral  nature  of 
sin  natura  morali  peccati/)  by  the  testimouy  of  the  sacred 
writings,  and  the  necessity  of  sjiiritual  change."  Nor  is  he 
more  fortunate  in  his  reference  to  the  great  work  of  Dr.  Julius 
Miiller,  "  Lehre  von  der  Sunde.'^  Miiller  says,  according 
to  universal  usage,  it  is  the  religious  term  of  moral  evil."* — 
"  In  distinction  from  all  other  creatures,  man  is  the  subject  of 
moral  evil,  of  wickedness,  it  has  taken  possession  of  his  spi- 
rit.The  inmost  nature  of  sin,  the  evil  in  evil,  is  of  an 
entirely  spiritual  nature. "J  These  authorities,  in  common 
with  all  orthodox  theologians,  represent  sin  as  a  moral  evil, 
and  natural  depravity  as  a  moral  disease. 

It  may  be  interesting  and  gratifying  to  the  reader  to  have 
presented  in  connection,  so  that  he  can  take  them  in  at  a  single 
glance,  the  views  of  some  of  the  ^'  illustrious  Lutheran  Theo- 
logians on  this  subject.  The  Form  of  Concord  styles  it 
"  a  deep,  evil,  horrible,  fathomless,  unsearchable  and  unspeak- 
able corruption  of  the  whole  nature,  and  of  all  the  powers  of 
man,  especially  of  the  noblest  and  most  eminent  faculties  of 
the  soul,  in  the  understanding,  the  heart,  and  the  will."§ 
Chemnitz — ''a  corruption  or  depravity  that  is  inherent  in 
our  very  nature  or  substance,  and  as  a  spiritual  poison  infects, 
corrupts,  and  diffuses  itself  far  and  wide  through  all  the  niem- 

''^  "  .  .  im  allgemeinen  Sprachgebrauch  die  religiose  Bezeichnung 
des  sittlich  Bosen  ist." 

f  "  Das  sittliche  Uebel,  das  Bose,  hat  der  Mensch  vor  alien  Natur- 
wesen  voraus ;  in  Geiste  selbst.  .  .  hat  es  seinen  Sittz." 

X  .  .  das  innerste  Wesen  der  Siinde,  das  Bose  im  Bosen,  ganz 
spiritiieller  Natur  ist." 

^  "  .  .  intima,  pessima,  profundissima,  (instar  cujusdam  abyssi,j 
inscrutabilis  et  ineffabilis  corruptio  totius  naturae,  et  omnium  virium, 
imprimis  vero  super iorum  et  principalium  animae  facultatura,  in 
mente,  intellectu,  corde,  et  voluntate.*' 


56 


THE  NW  THEOLOGY. 


bers  of  our  whole  substance  or  nature."*  Gerhard — "  a 
poison  that  has  pervaded  all  the  powers  of  man.""]"  Quen- 
STEDT — "  a  horrible  corruption  and  depravity  of  human  na- 
ture, and  of  all  its  powers,  excluding  all  from  the  favor  of 
Grod  and  eternal  life,  and  subjecting  them  to  temporal  and 
eternal  punishments,  unless  they  are  born  again  of  water  and 
the  Spirit,  or  obtain  through  Christ  the  remission  of  sins."  j 
Baumgarten — a  defective,  irregular,  unrighteous,  dis- 
ordered condition  and  disposition  of  the  whole  nature. "§ 
HoLLAZ — ^'  a  deep  corruption  of  the  entire  nature." ||  MuL- 
LER — ''amoral  disturbance,  an  innate  propensity  to  evil, 
that,  as  the  radical  evil,  is  fast  rooted  into  the  very  nature  of 
man."^ 

Here  may  be  added,  though  older  than  any  of  them,  the 
article  on  original  sin,  as  agreed  upon  by  Lutherans  and  Re- 
formed, at  the  Marburg  Conference,  October  4th,  1529.  This 
article  was  subscribed  by  Luther,  Melancthon,  Jonas,  Osian- 
der,  Brentz,  Agricola,  Oecolampadius,  Zwingle,  Bucer,  and 

.  .  corruptio  sen  depravatio.  .  .  liaeret  in  ipsa  natura  seu  sub- 
stantia nostra,  et  tanquam  spirituale  veneaum  infecit,  persuasit  et  dif- 
fusum  est  longe  lateque  per  omnia  membra  totius  substantiae  seu 
naturae  nostrae." 

f     .  .  veneni  instar  omnes  liominis  vires  pervaserit." 

J  "  .  .  liorreudam  humanae  naturae,  omniumque  virium  corruptio- 
nem  et  depravationem,  omuesque  excludens  a  gratia  Dei  et  vita  aeter- 
na,  et  subjiciens  aeternis  et  temporalibus  poenis,  nisi  ex  aqua  et  Spiritu 
renascantur,  sive  per  Christum  remissionem  peccatorum  conse- 
quantur." 

"  ^  .  .  der  mangelhaften,  uuordeutlichen,  uurechtmassigen  unrich- 
tigen  Verfassung  und  Einrictitung  der  ganzen  Natur." 

II     .  .  totam  naturam  humanam  intime  corrumpens." 

^  .  .  eine  sittliche  Storung,  ein  Hang  zum  Bosen  augeboren,  dass 
— als  das  radikale  Rose — in  die  menschliche  Natur  selbst  eingewur- 
zelt  ist." 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


57 


Hedio.  It  reads  as  follows  : — "  Credimus,  quod  peccatum 
originale  sit  nobis  innatum,  et  ab  Adamo  in  nos  propagatum. 
Et  quod  sit  tale  peccatum,  quod  omnes  homines  damnation! 
obnoxios  faciat.  Ita,  quidem,  ut  nisi  Jesum  Christum  nobis 
sua  morte  et  vita  subvenisset,  omnes  homines  propter  originale 
peccatum  damnati  fuissent,  nec  in  regnum  Dei,  et  ad  aeternam 
felicitatem  pervenire  potuissent." — We  believe  that  original 
sin  is  innate  in  us,  and  propagated  in  us  from  Adam  :  and  is 
such  as  to  subject  all  men  to  condemnation  :  so  that,  indeed, 
unless  Jesus  Christ  had  interposed  for  us  by  his  life  and 
death,  all  men  would  have  been  condemned  on  account  of 
original  sin,  neither  could  they  have  entered  the  kingdom  of 
God,  or  obtained  eternal  life." 

Compared  with  these,  Dr.  S.  S.  S.'s  exhibition  of  the  sub- 
ject must  appear,  to  say  the  least,  very  feeble.  He  tells  us 
that  "  the  word  disorder  literally  implies  an  abnormal  or  a 
confused  state so  that  now  his  definition  as  explained  will 
be — original  sin,  or  natural  depravity,  is  an  abnormal  or  a 
confused  state  of  the  bodily  and  mental  system."  This  may 
suit  some  tastes,  but  the  writer  must  be  allowed  the  privilege 
of  expressing  his  very  decided  dissent.  There  is  something 
in  natural  depravity  far  darker  and  more  hateful  than  is  con- 
veyed by  such  forms  of  expression.  The  language  is  not  in 
harmony  with  our  standards,  with  the  teaching  of  our  best 
theologians,  nor  with  the  words  employed  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

If  he  does  not  differ  from  standard  orthodox  divines,  why 
not  employ  language  in  its  common  and  etymological  meaning, 
so  as  not  to  give  rise  to  the  charge,  among  ministers  of  his 
own  and  other  churches,  of  unsoundness  in  the  faith  ? 

He  knows  very  well,  or  ought  to  know,  that  at  the  present 
day,  the  most  accurate  wfiters,  as  well  as  the  masses,  employ 
the  word  mental  as  not  only  not  comprehending  what  is  morcd, 
but  very  frequently  in  express  contradistinction  from  that 


58 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


term.  He  knows  too,  that  there  is  a  theoiy  of  human  nature, 
and  not  without  its  adherents  in  the  land,  which  denies  to  in- 
fants any  moral  character  whatever.  He  must  be  aware  that 
his  language  seems  to  many  to  favor  this  view  ;  and  that  when 
he  says  their  bodily  and  mental  system  is  so  disordered,  as 
in  result  of  its  operations  to  evince  a  predisposition  to  sin," 
he  is  thought  to  inculcate  the  idea  that  children,  when  born, 
have  no  character,  either  for  good  or  evil.  If  he  entertains 
siich  views,  he  should  not  lack  the  courage  to  avow  it ;  and  if 
he  does  not,  he  should  use  such  terms  as  would  put  his  mean- 
ing beyond  the  reach  of  doubt,  or  of  controversy.  Our  lan- 
guage is  not  so  barren,  that  a  man,  who  knows  what  he  be- 
lieves, cannot  express  his  belief;  and  unless  Dr.  S.  S.  S. 
adopts  the  sentiment,  that  the  chief  use  of  language  is  to  con- 
ceal one's  opinions,  he  ought  to  give  the  church  a  clearer 
statement  of  what  he  believes  and  teaches  on  this  subject. 

2.  Regeneration. 

Upon  this  topic  the  author  evidently  feels  himself  vulner- 
able, and  labors  hard  by  various  shifts  to  cover  his  weak 
points,  and  divert  attention,  either  to  the  writer,  or  to  some- 
thing not  at  all  in  dispute.  It  may  be  best  to  settle,  first  of 
all,  the  charge  preferred  against  the  writer  of  unsoundness, 
because  he  said — "  regeneration  has  to  do,  and  that  chiefly, 
with  native  depravity — and  that  its  very  object  is  its  removal." 
The  words  ^'  its  removal"  are  arrayed- by  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  in  cap- 
itals, and  alleged  to  be  in  conflict  loith  our  best  autliorities, 
and  with  the  loord  of  God  itself."  The  particular  portion  of 
the  word  of  God  is  not  mentioned,  and  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  perhaps 
forgot,  that  the  writer  had  employed  the  exact  synocym  of  the 
Bible — I  will  TAKE  AWAY  the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh." 
Now  if  this  is  heresy,  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  may  make  the  most  of  it, 
but  he  should  be  careful  not  to  quarrel  with  the  words  of  the 
Holy  Ghost. 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


59 


As  to  the  writer's  maintaininfir  that  infants  or  adults  must 
he  wholly  sanctified  in  this  Hfe;^'  he  was  at  some  pains,  in 
the  article,  to  point  out  and  illustrate  the  difference,  bettveen  the 
original  na  ive  depravity  of  the  heart,  loithout  one  single  right 
affection  towards  God,  and  the  state  of  the  heart  renewed  hy 
divine  grace,  into  which  however,  evil  thoughts  will  sometimes 
enter,  disturhiiig  its  peace,  and,  it  may  he,  leading  to  for- 
hidden  acts.''  This  distinction  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  might  have  found 
on  the  very  same  page  in  Baumgarten,  from  which  he  has 
made  a  partial  quotation.  There  these  words  occur — 
^'  Vocantur  reliquiae,  quia  non  eodem  modo  supersit  peccatum 
originale,  quo  antea  adfuit."  This  is  called  remains,  because 
original  sin  does  not  exist  in  same  manner  as  it  did  before." 
Dr.  Julius  Miiller  says, — Certainlj'-  in  such  a  life  the 
dominion  of  sin  has  been  broken;  the  personal  will  is,  with 
full  inward  purpose,  devoted  to  the  Divine  Will;  this  unity 
is  the  strictly  impelling  and  determining  principle;"*  And  if 
the  author  will  pardon  the  writer  for  again  quoting  from  a 
despised  Calvinist,  Dr.  Chalmers  says, — "  We  mistake  Christi- 
anity, if  we  think  that  it  only  provides  an  expiation,  to  do 
away  the  guilt  of  our  original  depravity.  It  provides  a 
regenerating  influence  to  do  away  its  existence.  It  does 
something  more  than  demonstrate  the  evil  malady  of  our 
nature.  It  will  not  be  satisfied  with  any  thing  short  of  destroy- 
ing it.  For  this  purpose  it  brings  a  new  and  a  powerful 
element  into  living  play  with  the  original  elements  of  our  con- 
stitution; and  with  these  it  sustains  a  combat  that  may  well  be 
denominated  a  war  of  extermination." 

The  writer,  after  carefully  reviewing  what  he  has  written, 

*  "  Allerdings  ist  in  einen  solchen  Leben  die  Herrschaft  der  Siinde 
gebroclien;  der  persbnliche  Wille  ist  dem  gbttlichen  Willen  mit 
innerer  Entschiedenheit  zugewandt;  diese  Einheit  ist  das  eigentlich 
treibende  und  bestimmende  Princip." 


GO 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


jfinds  nothing  to  modify  or  retract ;  nor  anything  that  needs 
long  parentheses  to  explain;  but  he  is  willing  to  leave  it  just 
as  it  is,  to  the  candid  reader.  He  has  used  no  languao-e 
stronger  than  is  to  be  found  in  the  Bible,  or  than  has  been 
used  by  writers  of  acknowledged  orthodoxy,  and  even  those 
whom  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  quotes. 

As  some  readers  may  hesitate  about  the  word  chsfroi/,^' 
and  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  seems  inclined  to  strain  its  meaning,  it  may 
be  proper  to  observe  that  it  does  not,  in  its  etymological,  or 
scriptural,  or  popular  signification,  mean  annihilation.  Ety- 
mologically  (destruo)  it  means  to  pull  down,  to  overthrow — 
scriptu rally  it  means  to  overthrow,  to  break  the  power  of,  to 
ruin,  Heb.  ii.  14;  Ptom.  vi.  6 — and  popularly  we  say,  'the 
frost  destrojT^ed  the  fruit,'  when  only  injured;  and  '  the  hail 
destroyed  the  field  of  grain,'  though  some  of  it  be  left'remain- 
ing.  Webster  says — "an  army  is  destroyed  by  slaughter, 
capture,  or  dispersion."  And  in  its  etj^mological,  scriptural, 
and  popular  sense,  most  Christians  will  agree  with  Paul,  when 
he  says,  "our  old  man  is  crucified  with  him,  that  the  body  of 
sin  might  be  destroyed.'' 

Dr.  S.  S.  S.  cites  a  number  of  authorities  to  prove,  what 
was  admitted,  and  what  no  intelligent  Lutheran  doubts — that 
sin  still  remains  in  the  believer,  after  his  regeneration ;  and 
that  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  sanctification  is  not  per- 
fected until  death.  About  this  there  was  no  dispute  ;  but 
the  real  point  was,  whether  those  were  regenerated  at  death, 
who  were  incapable  of  regeneration  during  life.  The  writer 
said — "As  to  any  change  effected  in  the  spiritual  part,  at 
death  or  by  death,  we  are  very  much  in  the  dark  :  but  there 
is  no  reason  to  think  that  death  itself  effects  any  change  in 
the  moral  character  either  of  infants  or  adults.  If  regenera- 
tion be  impossible  during  the  life  of  an  infant,  and  possible 
at  death,  we  should  like  to  know  why."    What  fault  does 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


61 


any  one  find  with  this?  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  knew  perfectly  ^^ell, 
that  every  writer  he  quotes  on  this  point,  holds  to  the  capa- 
bility of  infant  regeneration.  He  knew  also  that  they  were 
speaking  of  the  complete  sanctification,  or  entire  deliverance 
from  all  sin,  of  those  who  were  already  regenerated.  It  must 
be  very  gratifying  to  Old  Lutherans,  to  find  him  quoting,  as 
one  of  ''our  best  authorities,"  Luther  saying,  Baptism  re- 
moves the  guilt  of  natural  depravity."  He  might  have  gone 
a  little  further,  and  in  the  very  same  paragraph,  Miiller,  S.  B., 
p.  83,  quoted, — ''He  (Luther)  has  ever  clearly  taught,  that 
Holy  Baptism  extirpates  and  removes  the  entire  guilt  and 
hereditary  debt  of  original  sin,"  and  "  that  the  Holy  Grhost, 
given  through  Baptism,  begins  daily  to  mortify  and  Mot  out 
the  remaining  'evil  desires  in  us,  and  puts  into  the  heart  a 
new  light,  a  new  mind  and  spirit."  And  two  pages  on, 
Miiller's  (S.  B.)  p.  85,  he  would  have  found  that  Luther 
taught  in  regard  to  original  sin  that  "we  need  the  constant 
light  and  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  through  which,  it  is 
mortified  and  removed  ("  ausgefeget  und  getodtet  werde.") 
Here,  perhaps,  will  be  as  convenient  a  place  as  any  other, 
since  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  objects  to  Calvinistic  authoriaes,  to  intro- 
duce a  few  Lutheran  divines  on  the  subject  of  infant  regene- 
ration. Chemitz  says — "Although  we  may  not  fully  under- 
stand, or  be  able  to  explain,  the  manner  of  the  Holy  Spirit's, 
influence  and  operation  in  infants,  who  are  baptized,  yet  the  fact, 
and  that  it  does  take  place,  is  from  the  word  of  God  certain."''^ 
"Nor  is  it  by  any  means  to  be  conceded  that  infants,  who 
are  baptized,  are  without  faith,"  GtERHARD — "  We  are  not 
solicitious  about  the  mode  of  their  faith,  but  rest  in  this  sim- 

*  "  Licet  nec  satis  intelligamus,  nec  verbis  explicare  possimus, 
qualis  sit  ilia  spiritus  S,  actio  et  operatic  in  infantibus,  qui  baptizantur : 
esse  tamen  et  fieri  ex  verbo  Dei,  certum  est."  "  Nequaquara  conceden- 
duin  est,  infantes  qui  baptizantar  sine  fide  esse." 

6 


62 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


plicitjj  that  infants  do  truly  believe/'*  Hollaz — "  That 
the  understanding  of  infants  is  imbued  with  the  saving 
knowledge  of  Grod,  in  their  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
through  baptism,  and  their  will  endued  with  reliance  upon 
Christ,  we  do  not  doubt."-}-  The  writer  does  not  consider  it 
necessary  to  say  how  far  he  agrees  with  these  authorities. 
Dr.  S.  S.  S.  complained  that  Calvinistic,  and  not  Lutheran 
theologians  had  been  adduced  on  this  subject,  and  the  reader 
may  now  decide  how  well  they  agree  with  his  dogmatic  asser- 
tion, in  regard  to  infants, — '•Hliey  neither  have,  nor  can  have, 
any  religious  vieivs  or  feelings,  or  actions  at  all."  Such 
sentiments,  the  illustrious  Lutheran  Theologians"  would 
scout,  as  bald  rationalism;  and  perhaps  even  those  who  do 
not  favor  baptismal  regeneration,  will  wonder  where  the  author 
obtained  this  absolute  knowledge,  in  regard  to  the  powers  of 
the  infant  soul,  or  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  work  upon  it. 

The  reader  may  now  prepare  to  look  at  something  that 
is  really  amusing — one  of  the  author's  grand  exploits,  and 
which  proves,  that  when  in  a  strait,  he  can  use  the  sliding 
scale  quite  as  dextrously  as  logic.  The  writer  had  quoted, 
from  the  works  of  Dr.  S.  S.  S.,  a  passage,  to  show  how  he 
disposed  of  those  dying  in  infancy,  after  denying  the  possi- 
bility of  their  regeneration.  That  passage  teaches  that  ^^at 
death  their  corruptible  nature  shall  be  transformed  into  an 
incorruptible,  and  their  mortal  into  an  immortal  one."  . .  .  The 
writer  said — the  corruptible  mortal  nature  nfiust  mean  the 
bodily  part,"  and  objected  to  the  statement  as  quite  a  new 
version  of  the  apostle's  language — anew  view  of  the  resurrection 

*  "Nos  non  de  modo  fidei  solliciti  sumus,  sed  in  ilia  simplicitate 
acquiescimus,  quod  infantes  vere  credant." 

•|-  "  Quin  tamen  intellectus  infantum  in  regeneratione  per  baptismum 
a  spiritu  S,  imbuatur  notitia  Dei  salutari,  et  voluntas  eorum  donetur 
■  fiducia  in  Ohristo,  nulli  dubitamus." 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


63 


— and  a  contradiction  of  all  the  evidence  of  our  senses."  The 
case  was  so  plain,  and  the  absurdity  so  gross,  that  not  even  a 
child  could  fail  to  perceive  it,  or  mistake  the  writer's  meaning. 
But  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  cries  out — On  the  glaring  mistake  of  Rev.  B., 
in  representing  our  statement,  that  the  corruptible  and  mortal 
nature  of  children  is  changed  at  death,  as  a  quotation  from 
1  Cor.  15;  whereas  the  apostle  is  there  speaking  of  the  hody 
alone,  and  our  sentence  is  neither  marked  as  a  quotation,  nor 
intended  as  one,  and  his  there  charging  our  sentence  as  being 
a  novel  explanation  of  tfiat  text,  we  will  not  dwell. Now 
Bev.  B.  made  no  such  glaring  mistake,^'  as  to  represent  that 
''statement"  as  a  quotation  from  1.  Cor.  He  knew  very  well 
that  Paul  had  never  written  such  nonsense,  and  his  venera- 
tion for  the  apostle  is  too  great  even  to  hint  such  a  slander. 
ButasDr.  S.  S.  S.  had  made  use  of  the  same  terms  as  the  apostle, 
(and  evidently  from  him,)  accommodating  them  to  his  own  pur- 
pose, the  writer  called  it  anew  version  ('a  turning'  Webster) 
of  the  apostle's  language'^  The  amusing  part,  however,  is 
how  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  gets  over,  what  he  evidently  saw  was,  a  case 
of  stubborn  fact.  Some  ingenuity  must  be  employed  and, 
the  sliding  scale  is  called  into  requisition.  Mark  how  admi- 
rably it  is  managed.  He  begins  with  ''the  corruptible  and 
mortal  nature,"  italicizing  the  word  "  nature.^'  This  of 
course  can  only  apply  to  the  body,  for  the  soul  is  neither 
mortal  nor  corruptible,  in  the  only  sense  in  which  corruptible 
can  be  here  employed.  But  as  he  proceeds,  he  quietly  slides 
out  "  corruptible  and  mortal  nature,^'  and  slips  in  instead, 
depraved  nature;'"  and  as  this  would  not  still  do,  he  makes 
another  slide,  and  substitutes  for  "  depraved  nature"' — "  all 
that  remains  living  and  conscious  of  them,^  and  then  puts 
in  apposition  to  this,  or  as  a  substitute,  "  their  soul,""  and 
completes  this  part  of  the  game  by  telling  us  that^  at  death, 
this  "  is  wholly  delivered  from  every  taint  of  sin  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  of  Grod."    He  does  not  however  forget  the  very  ini- 


64 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGYj, 


portant  part  of  a  skillful  performer,  to  divert  attention,  whilst 
managing  these  slides,  bj  repeating,  glaring  mistake" — ■ 
evidently  not  acquainted  with  the  fact."  . .  and  when  the 
feat  is  done,  to  avoid  detection,  he  points  "  the  reviewer  for 
better  information,"  to  numerous  great  authorities,  who  hold 
the  very  othodox  conclusions,  to  which  he,  by  this  sliding 
process  came  !!!  ^'Risum  teneatis,  amici?"  If  Dr.  S.  S.  S. 
will,  just  for  his  own  credit  as  a  theologian,  and  that  of  the 
church,  erase  that  statement  from  his  publications,  and  give 
us  something  scriptural  and  sensible  in  its  stead,  the  writer 
will  not  be  severe.  But  in  the  meantime,  that  no  one  may  mis- 
take in  the  matter,  and  that  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  may  by  no  possibility 
pervert  the  writer's  meaning,  he  will  just  say,  (1)  that  ''the 
corruptible  and  mortal  nature"  can  only  mean  the  bodily 
part, — and  (2)  that  to  teach  this  becomes  incorruptible  and 
immortal  at  death,  is  (a)  to  oppose  the  plain  language  of  the 
Bible,  (b)  to  inculcate  a  new  view  of,  or  deny  the  resurrection, 
(c)  to  contradict  the  clearest  and  most  positive  testimony  of 
our  senses. 

The  "psychological  definition parenthetically  developed, 
of  Dr.  S  S.  S.,  the  writer  is  unwilling  to  mar  by  any  attempt 
at  dissection.  It  will  be  left  a  complete  whole,  as  a  curious 
specimen  of  theological  and  literary  workmanship.  The 
author  is  constrained  himself  reluctantly  to  confess  "that  the 
original  may  he  ohscureJ'  This  it  seriously  to  be  regretted 
on  a  subject  of  so  much  importance,  and  especially  as  this 
"■psychological  definition'"  constituted  a  part  of  that  pamphlet, 
called  the  "Definite  Synodical  Platform;"  but  it  is  hoped  that 
the  very  brief  and  unimportant  parentheses,  added  by  the 
author,  will  make  it  more  luminous.  If  pastors  are  some- 
times ''cloudy"  or  ''obtuse,"  theological  professors  ought  not 
to  leave  their  readers  in  the  dark,  when  examining  into  the 
4^  nature  of  regeneration. 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY.  G5 

The  exposition  the  author  has  given  of  this  subject,  in  his 
article  in  the  Review,  is  much  more  to  the  writer's  taste :  hut 
it  is  in  irreconcilable  conflict  with  the  other  statement.  No 
ingenuity  can  harmonize  such  '^a  radical  change,'^  as  is  there 
described,  with  a  mere  change  of  sinful  hahitsj''  formed  by 
the  individual,  after  having  reached  years  of  moral  agency.'^ 
The  one  will  not  explain  or  illustrate  the  other.  They  are 
opposite  and  contrary  statements,  and  will  no  more  blend  in 
one  harmonious  whole,  than  water  and  oil  will  form  one  homo- 
geneous mixture.  For  instance,  the  author  tells  us  that  his 
definition  of  regeneration  as  a  radical  change  is  one,  which 
*^as  the  etymology  of  the  word  implies,  affects  the  root  or 
source  of  human  thought  and  action;^'  but  he  comes  right 
after,  and  ignores  what  he  has  just  said,  by  affirming  that  "it 
must  consist  mainly  in  a  change  of  that  increased  predisposi- 
tion to  sin  ARISING  FROM  ACTION,  of  that  preponderance  of 
sinful  liabits  formed  by  voluntary  indulgence  of  our  natural 
depravity,  after  we  have  reached  years  of  moral  agency.'' 
Now  it  will  hardly  be  denied  that  "  the  increased  predisposi- 
tion to  sin  arising  from  action,"  "the  sinful  habits  formed  by 
voluntary  indulgence,"  is  an  after-growth,  something  that  has 
grown  out  of,  and  grown  upon,  this  root  of  natural  depravity. 
And  as  he  makes  regeneration  "consist  mainly"  in  a  change 
of  this  after-growth — "that  increased  predisposition" — "the 
sinful  habits" — how  can  it  be  a  "radical  change,"  or  one  that 
truly  "affects  the  root  and  source?"  The  root  of  sin,  and  the 
"sinful  habits"  ^^foiined"  afterwards,  are  different  and  dis- 
tinct, as  the  root  and  branches  of  a  tree  are  different;  and 
whatever  has  to  do  "mam?y,"  or  chiefly  with  the  latter,  can- 
not with  reason  or  propriety  be  said  to  have  to  do  primarily, 
or  extensively  with  the  former.  If  regeneration  has  regard 
"mainly  to  the  natural  depravity,  or  root  of  sin,  then  the 
"sinful  habits,"  or  all  that  grows  out  of  this  root,  will  be 

6* 


66 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


affected  by  it,  as  anything  at  the  root  of  a  tree  affects  its  entire 
growth;  but  if  it  has  regard  '^mainly"  to  the  mere  ''habits 
formed/'  the  root  may  not  be  seriously  affected.  And  this 
'•^radical  change,''  we  are  told,  so  far  as  natural  depravity 
(the  real  root  of  sin — the  erbsiinde  is  concerned^  merely 
restrains"  it.  The  author  has  been  at  some  pains  to  illustrate 
and  confirm  this  view^  so  as  to  leave  no  doubt  about  his  mean- 
ing in  this  connection. 

It  is  now  time  that  the  writer  should  endeavor  clearly, 
and  in  as  few  words  as  possible,  to  state  and  illustrate  the 
chief  and  original  points  in  debate  upon  this  subject.  So 
much  that  is  collateral  has  been  introduced,  that  the  reader 
will  require  a  fresh  and  precise  statement. 

1.  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  alleges  that  ''  regeneration  merely  restrains 
the  natural  depravity,  or  innate  sinful  dispositions. The 
writer  maintains  that  it  does  much  more,  that  it  strikes  at  the 
very  root  of  it,  that  ''its  object  is  its  removal,' '  which  it  be- 
gins to  accomplish.  If  "regeneration  merely  restrains  the 
natural  depravity,"  it  does  nothing  more  than  unregenerate 
men  are  doing  every  day,  when,  from  any  motive  or  influence 
whatever,  they  restrain  their  evil  passions  and  dispositions. 
One  of  "the  illustrious  Lutheran  Theologians,''  Quenstedt, 
describes  it  thus — "Neque  enim  in  objecto  spiritualitor  bono 
cognoscendo  et  appetendo  in  homine  vires  antiques  expoliun- 
tur,  sopitse  suscitantur,  infirmse  roborantur,  aut  ligatse  saltern 
solvuntur,  sed  plane  novae  et  alise  vires  aut  facultates  ipsi  con- 
feruntur  atque  induuntur" — "  In  discerning  and  seeking  after 
spiritual  good,  it  is  not  the  polishing  of  the  old,  or  the  arous- 
ing of  the  slumbering,  or  the  strengthening  of  the  weak,  or 
the  loosening  of  the  fettered  powers  in  man,  but  clearly  the 
endowing  and  bestowing  upon  him  new  and  different  powers 
or  faculties."  "The  high-toned  Calvinist,  Edwards,"  in  har- 
mony with  the  Lutheran  Quenstedt,  describes  regeneration  as 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


67 


imparting,  ^^as  it  were^  a  new  spiritual  sense,  or  a  principle  of 
new  kind  of  perception  or  spiritual  sensation,  which  is  in  its 
whole  nature  different  from  any  former  kinds  of  sensation  of 
the  mind,  as  tasting  is  diverse  from  any  of  the  other  senses.'^ 
The  Bible  represents  it,  as  being  born  again;  becoming  new 
creatures  ]  being  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  the  mind ;  being- 
made  partakers  of  the  divine  nature.'^  .... 

2.  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  alleo'es  that  regeneration  ^^must  consist 
mainly  in  a  change  of  that  increased  predisposition  to  sin  aris- 
ing from  action,  of  that  preponderance  of  sinful  liabits  formed 
by  voluntary  indulgence  of  our  natural  depravity,  after  we 
have  reached  years  of  moral  agency.''  The  writer  maintains 
that  it  consists  chiefly  or  primarily,  and  so  "mainly,''  in  a 
change  wrought  within  the  soul  by  the  Holy  Grhost )  and  that 
the  change  of  the  sinful  Jiahits  is  only  the  result  of  a  far 
deeper  change  in  the  very  depths  of  the  soul.  In  regenera- 
tion there  is  the  imparting  of  a  new  spiritual  life,  and  this, 
like  every  other  form  of  life,  works  from  within,  outward. 
The  stream  cannot  rise  higher  than  its  source,  or  the  branches 
have  life  that  is  not  in  the  root :  neither  can  regeneration 
alfect  the  "sinful  habits''  except  as  it  does  it  through  a 
change  wrought  in  the  naturally  depraved  heart.  The  change 
of  habits  is  only  a  reformation,  but  regeneration  is  the  "being 
born  again,"  "not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of 
the  will  of  man,  but  of  God."  And  in  accordance  with  this 
the  Saviour  said,  "Either  mahe  the  tree  good,  and  Ms  fruit, 
good ;  or  else  mahe  the  tree  corrupt,  and  his  fruit  corrupt'' 

In  perfect  harmony  with  what  the  writer  maintains,  Melanc- 
thon  says,  in  the  Apology — "For  this  reason  are  we  regene- 
rated and  receive  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  the  new  life  may  have 
new  works,  new  affections,  the  fear  and  love  of  Glod,  and  the 
hatred  of  sin  ...  .    This  regeneration  is  as  if  the  beginning 


68 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


of  eternal  life,  as  Paul  says,  (Eom.  viii.  10,)  ^^If  Christ  be 
in  you  the  spirit  lives.''* 

3 . — Justification. 

On  this  subject  the  author  has  said  but  little,  and  there  is 
no  occason  for  saying  much  in  reply.  There  was  no  room  for 
the  kind  of  skill  shown  in  disposing  of  the  other  topics,  and 
he  seemed  to  think  the  less  said  the  better  for  himself.  He 
cites  a  few  passages  from  different  works,  to  show  that  he  has 
elsewhere,  and  sometimes  taught  orthodox  views;  and  then 
without  any  attempt  to  explain  the  passages  reviewed,  or  even 
so  much  as  an  allusion  to  them,  asks,  "  will  it  be  believed  that 
our  cloudy  reviewer  insists  on  it,  that  we  teach  justification  in 
part  by  works,  and  that  mainly  on  the  ground  of  his  own  erro- 
neous supposition,  that  we  use  the  word  regeneration  as  includ- 
ing sanctification  ! !"  That  the  writer  understood  him  to  use 
^4'egeneration  as  synonymous  with  sanctification''  is  not  so 
strange,  when  his  language  in  American  Lutheranism  is  consid- 
ered, where  he  insists  on  its  including  "the  completion  of  this 
great  spiritual  renovation;"  and  when  it  is  considered  that 
many  others  have  understood  his  language  in  the  same  way. 
But  the  objections  to  what  he  has  written  on  justification, 
Dr.  S.  S.  S.  knows  very  well,  do  not  rest  on  this  understand- 
ing of  his  use  of  terms,  but  on  distinct  and  fully  quoted  pas- 
sages. If  the  author  did  not  choose  to  reply,  or  explain  what 
had  excited  the  astonishment  of  his  readers,  he  should  at  least 
have  refrained  from  assigning  a  false  reason  for  the  objec- 
tions of  the  writer. 

*  "Ideo  regeneramur  et  Spiritum  Sauctum  accipimus,  ut  nova  vita 
habeat  nova  opera,  novos  affectus,  timorem,  dilectionem  Dei,  odium 

concupiscentias   Hcec  regeneratio  est  quasi  inchoatio  seternae 

vitse,  ut  Paulus  ait  (Rom.  viii.  10  :)  '■Si  Christus  in  vobis  est,  Sj)iritus 
vivit" 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


69 


It  does  indeed  seem  strange  and  almost,  incredible,  that  tlie 
professor  of  Dogmatic  Tlieology,  in  a  Lutheran  Seminary, 
should  expose  himself  even  to  the  slightest  suspicion  of  writing 
what  is  unsound  on  the  great  cardinal  doctrine  of  the  reforma- 
tion. But  it  is  useless  to  deal  in  surmises  or  probahilities. 
It  is  a  simple  question  of  facts,  and  there  is  no  denying  or 
concealino;  the  truth,  that  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  has  made  use  of  Ian- 
guage,  which  has  subjected  him  to  this  charge,  and  that  not 
by  the  writer  alone,  but  by  those  whose  discrimination  and 
candor  will  not  be  questioned.  TThether  the  obnoxious  pas- 
sao'es,  which  have  given  rise  to  this  charge,  are  the  result  of 
real  unsoundness  on  the  part  of  the  author,  or  whether  they 
are  the  result  of  carelessness,  or  of  running  into  an  opposite 
extreme  whilst  combatting  a  contrary  error,  or  of  some  other 
cause,  the  writer  does  not  pretend  to  say.  But  it  would  have 
been  much  better  for  him,  to  let  his  readers  know  what  he 
did  mean  by  these  passages,  especially  as  the  charge  is  before 
the  world  in  more  than  one  publication.  In  the  work  already 
alluded  to  by  Dr.  J.  Mann,  p.  46,  he  says,  ''We  are 
astonished  to  see  that  the  Eev.  Dr.  Schmucker  seems  to  favor 
on  this  point  the  Romisli  doctrine  of  cooperation  on  man's 
part,  as  necessary  to  his  salvation  ;  for  we  cannot  give  any 
other  interpretation  to  the  following  extract  from  his  ■•Ameri- 
can Lutheranism  Vindicated,"  p.  125.  (Here  follows  the  same 
passage  quoted  by  the  writer  in  the  Review.)  He  adds — 
''  The  only  inference  which  must  necessarily  flow  from  these 
words  is  clearly  this,  namely,  that  the  sinner  must  be  sancti- 
fied before  he  can  be  justified.'"'  And  this  charge  is  not  con- 
fined to  a  few.  but  as  the  editors  of  the  Review  have  declared, 
is  made  ''extensively  in  the  Church;"  and  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  will 
be  very  much  mistaken,  if  he  thinks  to  meet  all  objection  to 
his  views,  by  the  cry  of  "cloudy  reviewer.''^  When  such 
charges  come  from  different  quarters,  and  from  men  who  can 


70 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


at  least  understand  "plain  English/^  tlie  suspicion  will  be 
raised  of  cloudiness  somewhere  else. 

The  case  is  so  plain  a  one,  and  the  whole  matter  confined  to 
so  narrow  a  compass,  that  there  is  neither  room  nor  occasion 
for  much  argument  or  illustration.  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  has  pointedly 
contradicted  himself,  and  written  what  is  beyond  all  contro- 
versy, contrary  to  sound  doctrine.  If  any  one  doubts  the 
truth  of  this  allegation,  let  him  compare  his  language — ^'jus- 
tification takes  place  at  tlie  moment,  when  the  sinner  first 
attains  a  living  faith  in  the  Redeemer — whenever  the  return- 
ing sinner  exercises  the  first  act  of  living  faith,  he  is  justi- 
fied"— with  the  following :— "  Without  a  new  birth,  an 

ENTIRE  MORAL  RENOVATION,  IN  WHICH  THE  REBEL  LAYS 
DOWN  THE  ARMS  OF  HIS  REBELLION,  AND  THE  SLAVE  OF  SIN 
IS  DELIVERED  FROM  THE  DOMINION  OF  HIS  DEPRAVED 
HABITS,  AND  BECOMES  AN  OBEDIENT  SERVANT  OF  ChRIST, 
LOVING  HOLINESS  AND  DELIGHTING  IN  THE  SERVICE  OF  GOD, 
IT  IS  IMPOSSIBLE  FOR  HIM  TO  OBTAIN  PARDON  OR  TO  BE 
JUSTIFIED.'^ 

The  point  is  the  condition  of  a  sinner's  pardon  or  justifica- 
tion. Dr.  S.  S.  S.  distinctly  affirms  that  without  certain 
things  on  the  part  of  a  sinner,  ^'it  is  impossible  for  him  to 
obtain  pardon  or  t'o  be  justified.''  If  the  sinner  cannot  be 
justified  without  them,  they  must  be  conditions  of  his  justifi- 
cation. They  ar^  not  the  accompaniments  or  the  fruits  of 
justification,  but  the  moral  or  spiritual  requirements,  which 
must  previously  exist,  or  without  which  the  pardon  will  not 
be  granted.  The  reader  is  requested  to  examine  carefully 
this  catalogue  of  requirements,  and  see  if  anything  is  wanting 
to  make  out  the  description  of  an  experienced  Christian — of 
one,  who  by  faith  has  obtained  the  victory  over  sin,  and  finds 
his  delight  in  the  things  of  Grod.  "Loving  holiness  and  de- 
lighting in  the  service  of  Grod,''  are  characteristics  of  God's 


THE  NEW  THEOLOar. 


71 


own,  true  children ;  and  none  except  a  citizen  of  Zion  will  be 
found  possessed  of  such  heavenly  traits  of  mind.  And  yet  we 
are  assured  by  T)r,  S.  S.  S.  that  without  such  things,  the  poor, 
penitent  sinner,  ready  to  perish,  cannot  obtain  pardon  or  be 
justified/^ 

The  writer  confesses  himself  at  an  entire  loss  to  account 
for  this  statement  coming  from  such  a  source.  But  he  is  not 
willing  to  stultify  himself  by  endeavoring  to  believe  that  it  is 
orthodox,  or  according  to  ^Hhe  form  of  sound  words,"  simply 
because  it  emanated  from  a  professor  of  theology.  Of  nothing 
has  he  a  clearer  conviction,  than  that  it  is  opposed  to  the 
true  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  as  set  forth  by  the 
great  apostle  to  the  gentiles,  and  as  it  is  received  and  taught 
among  all  evangelical  Protestant  denominations.  It  would  be 
a  very  easy  matter  to  cite  authorities  on  this  subject,  but  they 
are  unnecessary,  as  Dr.  S.  S.  S.  has  himself,  in  other  places, 
shown  the  unsoundness  of  the  statement  under  review.  A 
single  authority,  in  addition  to  those  already  cited  in  the 
article  in  the  review,  will  be  here  adduced,  and  with  this  the 
discussion  will  be  closed.  Chemnitz  says — Christ  has,  by 
his  sufferings,  merited  for  us  not  only  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
but  also  this,  that  on  account  of  his  merits  there  is  given  to 
us  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  we  may  be  renetved  in  the  spirit  of 
our  mind.  These  benefits  of  the  Son  of  God  we  say  indeed 
are  united,  so  that  when  we  are  reconciled  there  is,  at  the 
same  time,  given  a  spirit  of  renewal.  Yet  we  do  not  on  this 
account  confound,  but  distinguish  these  things,  so  that  we 
may  accord  to  each  its  own  place,  order  and  peculiarity,  as 
we  have  learned  from  the  scriptures,  viz  :  that  reconciliation 
or  the  forgiveness  of  sins  precedes  and  afterwards  follows  the 
commencement  of  love  or  of  new  obedience."* 

^  Christus  enim  sua  passione  meruit  nobis  non  tautum  remissio- 
nem  peccatorum,  verura  etiam  hoej  quod  propter  ipsius  meritura 


72 


THE  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


What  more  the  writer  considered  necessary  to  a  fair  under- 
standing of  this  discussion  has  now  been  said.  It  has  not 
been  a  controversy  of  his  own  seeking ;  but  one  to  which  he 
was  led  in  the  first  instance^  by  a  regard  for  the  truth;  and  which 
he  could  not  afterwards  abandon,  without  the  sacrifice  of  both 
truth  and  honor.  He  expects  no  personal  gain  from  this  dis- 
cussion, but  may  perhaps  incur  the  censure  of  those  whom  he 
would  be  glad  to  conciliate  as  friends.  Nor  has  he  any  per- 
sonal animosities  to  gratify,  but  earnestly  wishes  to  be  at 
peace  with  all  men,  and  especially  with  his  brethren  in  the  faith. 
But  he  will  not  be  intimidated  or  silenced  by  sneers  and 
denunciations  from  any  quarter.  He  commits  the  matter 
again  to  the  candid  judgment  of  his  readers,  and  is  willing  to 
abide  by  their  decision.  Anxious  only  for  the  truth,  and  ready 
to  be  convinced  whenever  in  error,  his  prayer  is  for  that 
wisdom  which  ^'is  first  pure,  then  peaceable,  gentle,  and 
easy  to  he  entreated,  full  of  mercy  and  good  fruits,  loitliout 
partiality,  and  without  hypocrisy.'' 

datur  nobis  spiritus  S.  ut  renovemur  spiritu  mentis  nostrae.  Haec 
beneficia  filii  Dei  dicimus  quidem  conjuncta,  ita  ut  quando  reconcili- 
amur,  simul  etiam  detur  spiritus  renovationis.  Sed  propferea  non 
confundimus  ilia  sed  distinguimus,  ita  ut  cuique  suum  locum,  ordinem 
et  suam  proprietatem  tribuamus,  sicut  ex  scriptura  didicimus,  ut  scil, 
reconciliatio  seu  remissio  peccatorum  praecedat  et  postea  sequatur 
inchoatio  dilectionis  seu  novae  obedientiae." 


f 

1 


4 


